ILNews

COA rules on anonymous juries

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on a case with a matter of first impression involving the use of anonymous juries and if they are reviewable under the harmless error analysis.

In Carl A. Major v. State of Indiana, http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/09280701cjb.pdf 45A03-0610-CR-483, Carl Major appealed his convictions of murder in the perpetration of a robbery and aggravated felony, and his aggregate sentence of 175 years in prison, arguing the trial court erred in empanelling an anonymous jury and that his sentence is inappropriate.

Major and two other males participated in a home invasion and robbery of a house in Hobart where crack was sold that had six individuals inside. One of his accomplices shot and killed three of the individuals and wounded two. Fearing the police were near, the three men ran from the site, but Major was apprehended a short while later. Major admitted to the police he agreed to help one of the men handle some business in exchange for getting paid, he knew they were going to commit a robbery, and that he carried a gun and guarded the house so no one could leave.

During voir dire in Major's trial, the defense counsel objected to the use of the "local rule," which prevented both counsels from having the names of the jurors. The court overruled, stating it would keep the names of the jurors at the bench and record the names with the court administrator's office in case there are issues of impropriety with the jury.

Major was sentenced to 55 years for each murder conviction and 10 years for the aggravated battery conviction; he was to serve those consecutively for a total of 175 years.

Major appealed, contending the use of an anonymous jury denied him certain federal rights to a fair trial and impartial jury. This is a case of first impression in Indiana, and the Court of Appeals looked to other courts for their rulings on the matter, including the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. That court has found empanelment of anonymous juries implicates a defendant's Fifth Amendment right to presumption of innocence. United States V. Mansoori, 304 F.3d 635, 650 (7th Cir. 2002). The appeals court noted many courts, including the 7th Circuit, have also observed that empaneling an anonymous jury may interfere with a defendant's right to a trial by an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment. United States v. Shryock, 342 F.3d at 971 (9th Cir. 2003).

Appellate courts considering this issue have relied on the standard that a trial court may have an anonymous jury if it concludes there is strong reason to believe the jury needs protection and takes reasonable measures to minimize any prejudicial effects on the defendant and to ensure his fundamental rights are protected. Courts may consider issues such as the defendant's involvement in organized crime, past attempts to interfere with judicial process, and whether publicity regarding the case presents prospective danger to the jurors.

The Court of Appeals concludes Indiana should adopt a similar position as other courts have regarding the use of anonymous juries and each case should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In evaluating Major's case, the court determined the use of an anonymous jury was an error because the trial court did not make a factual determination that the jury needed protection, it just alluded to the "local rule."

The state contends this was a harmless error, and the 7th Circuit has applied the harmless error analysis to the anonymous jury question. In this case, "given Major's confessions, the otherwise thorough nature of the voir dire, and the court's instructions regarding Major's presumption of innocence, we are convinced the error of the anonymous jury in this case was harmless," wrote Judge Cale Bradford. The court also affirmed Major's sentence was not inappropriate in light of his character and nature of his offenses.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT