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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT