E. Jean Carroll's recent $5 million jury verdict against former President Trump for sexual abuse and defamation had a notable footnote: the jury that Judge Kaplan empaneled at the U.S. Courthouse was anonymous, their identities unknown to the parties and to the public. This is unusual. Anonymous juries are sometimes empaneled in high-profile criminal cases involving organized crime, terrorists, or gang members. But in a civil case?
The case is Carroll v. Trump, 22-cv-10016 (LAK). The jury decision was issued on March 23. See 2023 WL 2612260 (S.D.N.Y. 2023). The anonymous jury may predicate Trump's appeal to the Second Circuit.
Judge Kaplan opens the discussion as follows: "This is a unique case." He then notes the defendant is a former president who has inspired strong opinions, both favorable and unfavorable, and is running for a second term in the White House. The concern is that Trump and his followers might disrupt this civil proceeding. This is based on Trump's prior public outbursts and the bad behavior of his supporters.
In reviewing the public record on Trump's prior outbursts, the Court notes, "Some individuals charged with crimes in connection with the January 6, 2020 events at the United States Capitol have argued that their actions were attributable to what the individuals perceived, rightly or wrongly, as incitement by Mr. Trump," and the Congressional January 6 committee determined that “the central cause of January 6th was one man, former President Donald Trump, whom many others followed." After reciting some of Trump's inflammatory public statements about people involved in Trump-related cases (the footnotes in this case are a good summary of Trump's inflammatory and vitriolic public comments in relationship to the legal system and other matters, including when he has advocated violence), Judge Kaplan writes, "For purposes of this order, it matters not whether Mr. Trump incited violence in either a legal or a factual sense. The point is whether jurors will perceive themselves to be at risk."
As trial courts have authority to empanel an anonymous jury even in criminal cases, where the defendant's liberty is at stake, it can do so in a civil case. Judge Kaplan writes:
If jurors’ identities were disclosed, there would be a strong likelihood of unwanted media attention to the jurors, influence attempts, and/or of harassment or worse of jurors by supporters of Mr. Trump. Indeed, Mr. Trump himself has made critical statements on social media regarding the grand jury foreperson in Atlanta, Georgia, and the jury foreperson in the Roger Stone criminal case. And this properly may be viewed in the context of Mr. Trump's many statements regarding individual judges, the judiciary in general, and other public officials, as well as what reports have characterized as “violent rhetoric” by Mr. Trump including before his presidency.In the end, (1) the names, addresses, and places of employment of prospective jurors on the voir dire panel, as well as jurors who ultimately are selected for the petit jury, shall not be revealed, (2) petit jurors shall be kept together during recesses and the United States Marshal Service shall take the petit jurors to, or provide them with, lunch as a group throughout the pendency of the trial." In addition, "at the beginning and end of each trial day, the petit jurors shall be transported together or in groups from one or more undisclosed location or locations at which the jurors can assemble or from which they may return to their respective residences." This is a remarkable order for a civil case.
After the jury completed its work and was about to leave the building, Judge Kaplan made it clear that the court is worried about their safety, telling them:
My advice to you is not to identify yourselves. Not now and not for a long time,” Kaplan said. “If you’re one who elects to speak to others and to identify yourselves to others, I direct you not to identify anyone else who sat on this jury. Each of you owes that to the other, whatever you decided for yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment