U.S. v. Honken, CR 01-3047-MWB.

• Citation: 378 F.Supp.2d 880
• Decision Date: 29 January 2004
• Docket Number: No. CR 01-3047-MWB.,CR 01-3047-MWB.
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Dustin Lee HONKEN, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

378 F.Supp.2d 880

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Dustin Lee HONKEN, Defendant.

No. CR 01-3047-MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division.

January 29, 2004.

Alfredo G. Parrish, Parrish, Kruidenier, Moss, Dunn, Montgomery, Boles & Gribble, LLP, Des Moines, IA, Charles Myers Rogers, Wyrsch, Hobbs & Mirakian, PC, Kansas City, MO, Leon F. Spies, Mellon & Spies, Iowa City, IA, for Defendant.

Charles J. Williams, Patrick J. Reinert, U.S. Attorney's Office Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, Thomas Henry Miller, AAG, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR ANONYMOUS JURY (FILED UNDER SEAL)

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................882
                     A.  The Prosecutions ..........................................................882
                         1.  The 1993 case .........................................................882
                         2.  The 1996 case .........................................................883
                         3.  The present case ......................................................883
                     B.  The Motion For An Anonymous Jury ..........................................888
                     C.  Additional Submissions In Support Of The Motion ...........................889
                         1.  1998 Sentencing transcript ............................................889
                             a.  Evidence of attempts to obstruct justice ..........................889
                                 i.  Testimony of Daniel Cobeen ....................................889
                                ii.  Testimony of Timothy Cutkomp ..................................890
                               iii.  Testimony of Dean Donaldson ...................................891
                                iv.  Testimony of Terry Bregar .....................................892
                                 v.  Testimony of Dennis Putzier ...................................892
                                vi.  Testimony of Dana Rasmussen ...................................893
                             b.  Evidence of an attempt to escape ..................................893
                                 i.  Further testimony of Terry Bregar .............................893
                                ii.  Testimony of David Leavitt and Derek Boggs ....................894
                               iii.  Further testimony of Dennis Putzier ...........................894
                                iv.  Testimony of William Garrison .................................894
                                 v.  Testimony of Lynette Redden ...................................894
                         2.  Affidavits ............................................................895
                         3.  Paper on anonymous juries .............................................895
                 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ................................................................895
                     A.  Should An "Anonymous" Jury Be Empaneled? ..................................895
                         1.  Arguments of the parties ..............................................895
                         2.  A matter of nomenclature ..............................................897
                

                3.  The rights at issue ...................................................898
                         4.  Applicable standards ..................................................899
                             a.  Case law standards ................................................899
                                 i.  Need to protect the jury ......................................900
                                ii.  Precautions to minimize prejudice to the defendant ............902
                              b.  18 U.S.C. § 3432 ............................................903
                                 i.  The statute ...................................................903
                                ii.  Judicial interpretations ......................................903
                               iii.  The burden of proof ...........................................904
                                iv.  Pertinent criteria for an anonymous jury ......................905
                         5.  Analysis ..............................................................906
                             a.  Need to protect the jury ..........................................906
                                 i.  Present or future capacity to harm jurors .....................906
                                ii.  Potential sentence ............................................910
                               iii.  Extent of publicity ...........................................911
                             b.  Precautions to minimize prejudice to the defendant ................913
                                 i.  Presumption of innocence ......................................913
                                ii.  Impartial jury ................................................915
                               iii.  Other concerns ................................................917
                     B.  The Proper Degree Of "Anonymity" ..........................................918
                         1.  Arguments of the parties ..............................................918
                         2.  Analysis ..............................................................919
                             a.  Degrees of anonymity ..............................................919
                                 i.  The "innominate" jury .........................................919
                                ii.  Limited anonymity .............................................919
                               iii.  A high degree of anonymity ....................................920
                                iv.  An anonymous and sequestered jury .............................920
                             b.  The degree of anonymity required here .............................921
                     C.  Further Prohibitions On Disclosure Of Juror Identity ......................922
                III. CONCLUSION ....................................................................924
                

In this death penalty case, involving the alleged murder of five witnesses to the defendant's drug-trafficking or other alleged criminal conduct,¹ the government has moved the court to empanel an "anonymous" jury to protect the jury from the alleged threat to their safety posed by the defendant and his associates. The defendant, however, contends that such a step would deprive him of the presumption of innocence and impede his ability to obtain a fair and impartial jury by means of effective voir dire. He also contends that 18 U.S.C. § 3432 demonstrates Congress's recognition that, even in a capital case, a defendant is entitled to know the identity of the people who will determine his guilt or innocence. The question presented thus requires a delicate balancing of competing interests. The court held a hearing on the motion for an anonymous jury on January 17, 2004, and now enters this written ruling on that motion and related issues.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. The Prosecutions

1. The 1993 case

The pertinent background to the government's motion for an anonymous jury in this case begins with a survey of the various prosecutions of defendant Dustin Lee Honken in this judicial district. Honken was first prosecuted for drug-trafficking offenses in this district in 1993 in Case No. CR 93-3019 ("the 1993 case"). As the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals explained,

In April 1993, a grand jury in the Northern District of Iowa indicted appellee for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. After the disappearance of one or more prospective prosecution witnesses, the government dismissed the indictment.

United States v. Honken, 184 F.3d 961, 963 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1056, 120 S.Ct. 602, 145 L.Ed.2d 500 (1999). Thus, the first prosecution of Honken in this district did not lead to a conviction.

2. The 1996 case

Honken was again indicted on drug-trafficking charges on April 11, 1996, this time with co-defendant Timothy Cutkomp, in Case No. CR 96-3004-MWB ("the 1996 case"). Count 1 of the Indictment in the 1996 case charged Honken and Cutkomp with conspiracy to distribute, manufacture, and attempt to manufacture 1000 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine and 100 grams or more of pure methamphetamine. Indictment in Case No. CR 96-3004-MWB (N.D.Iowa). Count 2 of the original Indictment in the 1996 case charged Honken with possessing and aiding and abetting the possession of listed chemicals, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(d) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and Count 3 charged possession and aiding and abetting the possession of drug paraphernalia intending to use such paraphernalia to manufacture and attempt to manufacture methamphetamine and listed chemicals, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, respectively. Id., Counts 2 & 3. A superseding indictment filed later in the 1996 case restated the first three charges and added a fourth charge of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine. See Superseding Indictment in Case No. CR 96-3004-MWB (N.D.Iowa). Eventually, in 1997, Honken pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge and the charge of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, i.e., Counts 1 and 4, and the government dismissed Counts 2 and 3. See, e.g., Honken, 184 F.3d at 963. Honken is now serving his sentence on Counts 1 and 4 in the 1996 case.

3. The present case

The present prosecution began with the filing of a seventeen-count indictment against Honken on August 30, 2001, which brought a variety of charges arising from Honken's alleged murder and solicitation of murder of witnesses to his alleged drug-trafficking and other criminal activity, which had, for example, allegedly brought the 1993 prosecution to its abrupt conclusion and had been intended to impede prosecution of the 1996 case. On August 23, 2002, a Superseding Indictment was handed down in this case, amending Counts 8 through 17. See Superseding Indictment (docket no. 46). Because the government relies, in part, on the allegations in the Superseding Indictment as grounds for empaneling an anonymous jury, the court will examine the charges in this case in more detail.

Counts 1 through 5 of the Superseding Indictment charge "witness tampering." More specifically,...