NY federal judge rules to have an “anonymous jury” decide the April 25 E Jean Carroll civil rape case against Trump for their own protection because in the judge’s words, Trump has in social media attacked jurors, judges and law enforcement, including attacking this week the Stormy Daniel’s hush money coverup grand jury.
by Michael Popok
MeidasTouch
Mar 24, 2023
Michael Popok of Legal AF reports on a NY federal judge’s ruling to have an “anonymous jury” decide the April 25 E Jean Carroll civil rape case against Trump for their own protection because in the judge’s words, Trump has in social media attacked jurors, judges and law enforcement, including attacking this week the Stormy Daniel’s hush money coverup grand jury.
Transcript
This is Michael Popock, Legal AF. We've got breaking news in the E. Jean Carroll civil rape case and defamation case going to trial against Donald Trump on April 25th, just one month away, in New York federal court. We have a ruling, as I predicted on a prior hot-take, Judge Lewis Kaplan has decided that, for the interest of justice, and to protect the jurors, they will remain anonymous during the jury, to protect their identity, to protect them from Donald Trump, and the followers of Donald Trump. How do I know that? Because in his opinion, Judge Kaplan cited to the misconduct of Donald Trump, including his recent social media postings attacking the prosecutors, and the grand jury in New York, looking at the Stormy Daniels cover-up, attacking the foreperson that was the foreperson for the special purpose grand jury in Georgia, attacking the foreperson for the Roger Stone criminal case. He cited, the Judge did, to all of these things, along with other things, including the fact that this is a man, a former president, who is being tried for civil rape, that has already been impeached twice, that has made it a habit of attacking judges, jurors, law enforcement, and a whole catalog of things that Judge Kaplan relied upon in order to make his ruling.
Anonymity of a jury is unusual. It generally only happens in criminal cases, because the guy, or the woman on the other side, the defendant, is really a bad person: a Unabomber, a World Trade Center bomber, a mob boss, a drug lord. Those are the people that you protect the jurors from. Civil cases -- very rare. Already, when Donald Trump and his lawyers walk into the courtroom, the jury is already going to have it in its mind: "bad guy, bad guy being tried, such a bad guy that my own personal safety and liberty is at risk!" That, if you're a defense lawyer, like Alina Habba claims that she is, or Joe Tacopina claims that he is, that is a bad start. You got one foot in the bucket even before you pick your jury, because the jury's going to be told, "Hey by the way, we're going to protect you, dot dot dot, implicitly from Donald Trump! Because he's a bad person, and his people around him, or him, will attack you!
You know, I get it that that the person is presumed innocent, but we're under a civil setting here. All that E. Jean Carroll has to prove is the lesser burden in a civil case, of preponderance of the evidence. That just means if you have two scales of justice, and you put a feather on one side, and it just tips up ever so slightly, that's preponderance of evidence. That's all the jury needs to know. They already have a preponderance of evidence in favor of E. Jean Carroll before the trial's even started, because of the anonymity ruling by the Judge.
Now interestingly, and another, I think, you know, poor strategic decision by Donald Trump's lawyers, they did not oppose the Judge's request that they be heard on the issue of anonymity, whether we're going to keep this jury anonymous. The judge came up with this on his own. He made an order last Saturday that said, "I'm giving you until the middle of the week, for the lawyers for both sides, to tell me pro or con, should I have an anonymous jury?" Would you believe that Donald Trump's lawyers didn't even take a position, and did not oppose covering the jury with anonymity?! What I said in my hot-take from a week ago, because it's the proper strategy, is that while the plaintiff's lawyers would be very appreciative of the judge's position, and say, "Judge, whatever you like. If you think they need to be protected from Donald Trump effectively, then we we agree with you. You should make them anonymous." But at least, we thought Alina Habba, the lawyer for Donald Trump, allegedly, or Joe Tacopina, the translucent lawyer for Donald Trump -- you never see him anywhere -- would object and say, "No, that's bad for our client. That tips the scales against him even before he starts. Don't do anonymity." But even they laid back and said, "Sure, Judge, you want to do anonymous, that sounds like a great idea to us."
So the only people, the only entities, that were opposing making the jury anonymous, were two newspapers, including Associated Press. So the Judge, however, it gave the judge the opportunity, in a 9-page decision, and we're going to put it up, and I'm going to read from it, because it's so powerful, as to why the Judge decided to make it anonymous, focusing solely on Donald Trump and his misconduct in social media, including just in the last couple of days.
For those that get all excited about his truth social postings, or social media posts, things like, "How does he get away with that?" On every one of them he should just type "Exhibit A" on the bottom, because every prosecutor, and every judge, is using his real-time, Trump's real-time social media postings, against him in the court in rendering their decisions.
This is an out-of-control client. It's no surprise that no lawyer around him -- he doesn't respect any of the lawyers around him, so they can't control Donald Trump and his conduct. They should quit the case, because they can't control their client.
Let me read from -- and we're going to put it up on the screen -- some of the most interesting, powerful rationale in Judge Kaplan's decision, leading to his decision that we're going to have an anonymous jury.
So let's start from scratch. The Judge first says -- let me pull it up here on the screen, so we know where we're starting from -- "This is a unique case. Donald J. Trump is accused in this and a second very closely related civil case of having raped E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and having defamed her ..."
That's the first line of the order from the Judge, okay? This is what the potential jury is going to read in the media, that the Judge has declared, of course, that this is a civil rape case, just the way we've reported it on legal AF, and I've done on my hot-takes. And he talks about the fact that this case is going to trial April the 25th. Now, let's get to the other parts of the ruling.
In the next [part of the] ruling it says that, "He is now a candidate for election to a second term." He's running for election again. "He has inspired strong opinions, both highly favorable and highly unfavorable." And he goes on to say that Donald Trump frequently attacks law enforcement, attacks judges, attacks the jury, using as examples attacking the foreperson in the special purpose grand jury in Georgia, attacking the foreperson for the jury for Roger Stone in his criminal trial, and even making this, like real time, and up to the minute, Judge Kaplan said, "I also note that he attacked the grand jury that's considering his potential indictment in the Stormy Daniels cover-up crime." That just happened two days ago. That's how up-to-the-minute and up-to-the-moment Judge Kaplan is. And for all of these reasons, Mr. Trump, your attacks on the judiciary, on jurors, on witnesses, on judges, on law enforcement, you forfeited your right to go after this jury. I'm going to keep them anonymous.
And so he ruled, Judge Kaplan, that this jury is going to be kept together by the Marshal. They're going to move as one from their caucus, and deliberation room, every day from the courtroom to go have lunch together -- together, not separately. They're going to be returned by the Marshal, back to the courthouse. They're going to be walked together to, I would assume, a bus, or transportation, that will take them to their next mode of transportation together, protected by the U.S Marshal.
So it's not just a matter of every time a jury comes in to a courtroom, it's "all rise to respect the jury." This jury is going to be kept in bubble wrap, and protected by the U.S Marshal, all along the way as we move forward into the trial of Donald Trump. And the primary reason, as declared by Judge Lewis Kaplan, is the misconduct of Donald Trump in attacking every aspect, and every element, of the judicial process, up until this moment in real time.
And Judge Kaplan has made it clear that he runs his courtroom in the interest of justice, and will protect the jury, who is the most important component in that courtroom. Above the parties, above the Judge, is the jury. That's why, when you're in a courtroom, you'd [not] only rise for the Judge, you rise for the entry of the jury, and to the jury's exit every day, because they play that important of a role in our system of jurisprudence and justice.
This is a devastating ruling and (1) I can't for the life of me, as a practicing trial lawyer in the courtrooms that that are currently being used, understand how, and why, Alina Habba, and Joe Tacopina, thought it was okay to fall asleep at the switch, and not at least make an argument, some sort of good faith argument, to have the jury not be insulated and protected, and not anonymous, under the argument that that taints their client on Day 1. They sat quietly, they sat on their hands, that played into the hands again of E. Jean Carroll and her lawyers, lawyer extraordinaire Roberta Robbie Kaplan, who we've had on our legal AF podcast.
So it is a great day for the plaintiff, for the jurors, for justice, and another in a series of increasingly, a series of bad court days for Donald Trump, which now stretch two years, in over 100 courtrooms around the country. He is just not winning! He's doing the opposite of winning. He's losing every major hearing, every major ruling, every major appeal, even up to the Supreme Court. He's on the short end of that stick.
This is what we're reporting, because the minutiae, and these micro-decisions that get made along the way, before a trial, at a trial, during a trial, these are the things that impact the outcome, shape the outcome, the jury result, the jury verdict. Some of these decisions are made in advance by the judge ruling on certain motions, motions to preclude evidence, motions to allow evidence, motions here to have the jury be anonymous. This is all important to both sides.
Again, it is the micro decisions that help impact and shape the actual outcome of the case. But because Alina Habba, and Joe Tacopina, are too busy in makeup and wardrobe on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, okay?, and they haven't been in the courtroom in a long, long time, they've lost their fastball about how to handle a case like this. And who was being penalized as a result? Whose defense is being undermined? Donald J. Trump.
But he can't get better lawyers to take his case, because better lawyers are the ones that will require him to listen to their advice and counsel. And if they don't, they have the professional self-worth, they have the reputational impact to say, "I don't need you in this case. I fire you as a client." But these kind of lower level lights think that they're going to get some benefit from having represented Donald Trump, so they continue to do it even though they cringe, I am sure, every time he opens his mouth, or puts his fingers on his keyboard, to start tweeting, or putting things on social media.
So the result is all of that, all of his attacks on every aspect of our justice system, have gotten the attention of Judge Lewis Kaplan, who has ruled today that there will be an anonymous jury starting on April 25th, in the civil rape and defamation case against Donald Trump brought by E. Jean Carroll.
We'll follow it on a show that I co-anchor every Wednesday and Saturday called Legal AF on the MeidasTouch Network. And in between those shows, I do, it's getting to be hourly updates, but certainly daily updates, we call Hot-takes, on real-time developments at the intersection of Law and politics, also on the YouTube channel for MeidasTouch Network. Subscribe there for free. You'll get notices when I start posting hot-takes, and then on Wednesdays and Saturdays we pull it all together with the top five stories we curated at that particular moment. You can also follow me on all social media, including Twitter at, Mspopock. This is Michael Popock, Legal AF, reporting.
************************
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
E. JEAN CARROLL,
Plaintiff,
-against-
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
Case: 22-cv-10016 (LAK)
MEMORANDUM OPINION RE ANONYMOUS JURY
Appearances:
Roberta Kaplan
Joshua Matz
Shawn Crowley
Matthew Craig
Trevor Morrison
Michael Ferrara
KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Joseph Tacopina
Matthew G. DeOreo
Chad Derek Seigel
TACOPINA SEIGEL & DEOREO, P.C.
Alina Habba
Michael T. Madaio
HABBA MADAIO & ASSOCIATES LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
Matthew A. Leish
MILLER KORZENIK SOMMERS RAYMAN LLP
Attorney for Non-Parties Daily News, L.P. and Associated Press
LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge.
Donald J. Trump is accused in this and a second very closely related civil case of having raped E. Jean Carroll in the mid 1990s and having defamed her in public statements in response to her rape accusation against him. He has denied the rape charge and disputes whether his statements are actionable.
The trial of this case will begin on April 25, 2023.1 On March 11, 2023, the Court directed the parties to file any objections to trying the case before an anonymous jury.2 Neither objected. Non-parties Daily News, L.P. (the “News”), and the Associated Press (the “AP”) oppose it. The matter is ripe for decision.
Facts
This is a unique case.
The defendant is a former president of the United States. He has been impeached twice although convicted on neither occasion. He now is a candidate for election to a second term. He has inspired strong opinions, both highly favorable and highly unfavorable. As will appear in more detail below, 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,3 a subject on which the Court expresses no view. The Final Report issued by the Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol concluded that “the central cause of January 6th was one man, former President Donald Trump, whom many others followed.”4
Mr. Trump’s quite recent reaction to what he perceived as an imminent threat of indictment by a grand jury sitting virtually next door to this Court was to encourage “protest” and to urge people to “take our country back.”5 That reaction reportedly has been perceived by some as incitement to violence.6 And it bears mention that Mr. Trump repeatedly has attacked courts, judges, various law enforcement officials and other public officials, and even individual jurors in other matters.7
In addition to Mr. Trump’s past words and actions together with perceptions of them by many people, it is highly relevant that this case already has been the subject of widespread media coverage. Even the most modest developments have attracted a good deal of attention.8 That coverage is likely only to increase once the trial is imminent or in process.
In these circumstances, this Court is obliged to consider the likely effect on jurors of the matters just described, similar events in the relatively recent past, and the likely future course of events, including the inevitable extensive media coverage. And it cannot properly ignore the significant risk that jurors selected to serve in this case will be affected by concern that they could be targeted for unwanted media attention, outside pressure, and retaliation and harassment from persons unhappy with any verdict that might be returned. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte raised the question whether protection of jurors’ identities and addresses would be appropriate. As noted, the parties do not object to an anonymous jury. Only the News and the AP have done so on the ground that the identities of individual jurors is within the presumption of public access to court proceedings and that they must be provided to the media and the public.
Discussion
Anonymous juries historically have been ordered in criminal cases in which the risk of tampering with or violent retaliation against jurors by criminal defendants or their confederates was palpable, most often in terrorism and organized crime cases. The impetus for the use of anonymous juries invariably or, at least, almost always has arisen in the prosecution of such cases. And this case does not fit that mold. But that is only the beginning of the discussion, not the end.
A court in an appropriate case has “broad discretion to take such steps as may be necessary and appropriate to permit the jury to concentrate on the trial proceedings and to evaluate the evidence in an atmosphere free from apparent threat or danger, so long as those steps do not violate the defendant’s fundamental rights.”9 It may order an anonymous jury “[w]hen genuinely called for and when properly used”10 – that is, “‘upon (a) concluding that there is strong reason to believe the jury needs protection, and (b) taking reasonable precautions to minimize any prejudicial effects on the defendant and to ensure that his fundamental rights are protected.’”11 It may do so on its own motion.12 And where there is a genuine need for an anonymous jury and reasonable precautions are taken, its use does not violate either the common law or the Constitution, even in a criminal case.13
As the lack of any objection from either Ms. Carroll or Mr. Trump suggests, this is such a case. 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.14 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.15 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.16 In these circumstances, the common law and constitutional arguments made by the News and the AP are unpersuasive.
To be sure, as the News and the AP argue, there is a presumptive right of access by the public to civil proceedings. The Court assumes, without deciding, that the right of access usually extends to the identities of jurors. But the presumption of access, even assuming it applies to jurors’ names, is not an unqualified right to that information. And the reliance by the objectors on a quotation from United States v. Paccione,17 in which the Second Circuit described some past cases in which anonymous juries have been appropriate, is unpersuasive as it omits the Circuit’s statement of the overriding principle. The controlling standard is this: "In general, the court should not order the empaneling of an anonymous jury without (a) concluding that there is strong reason to believe the jury needs protection, and (b) taking reasonable precautions to minimize any prejudicial effects on the defendant and to ensure that his fundamental rights are protected."18
On the basis of the unprecedented circumstances in which this trial will take place, including the extensive pretrial publicity and a very strong risk that jurors will fear harassment, unwanted invasions of their privacy, and retaliation by virtue of the matters referred to above, the Court finds that there is strong reason to believe that the jury needs the protection prescribed below. No less restrictive alternative has even been suggested. The presumption of access to juror names is overcome by this risk.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, (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 ("USMS") shall take the petit jurors to, or provide them with, lunch as a group throughout the pendency of the trial, and (3) at the beginning and end of each trial day, the petit jurors shall be transported together or in groups from one or more undisclosed locations at which the jurors can assemble or from which they may return to their respective residences.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 23, 2023
Lewis A. Kaplan
United States District Judge
_______________
Notes:
1 The other case, which was set for trial on April 10, 2023, has been adjourned sine die.
2 Dkt 84.
3 E.g., Ryan J. Reilly, Jan. 6 rioter who said he wanted Trump’s ‘approval’ found guilty by jury, NBC NEWS, Apr. 14, 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/14/jan-6-rioter-who-said -he-wanted-trumps-approval-found-guilty-by-jury.html (“A Donald Trump supporter who told jurors that he was ‘following presidential orders’ when he stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 was found guilty on Thursday after he admitted that he stole a coat rack and a bottle of liquor from the building.”); Shawna Chen, Judge: Jan. 6 rioter who broke into Capitol followed “Trump’s instructions”, AXIOS, Jan. 17, 2023, https://www.axios.com/2023/01/ 18/jan6-capitol-riot-trump-instructions (“A federal judge said Tuesday that a California woman who breached the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 insurrection ‘followed then-President Trump’s instructions’ in breaking the law.”); Sabrina Willmer, Proud Boys Vowed ‘Any Means Necessary’ to Keep Trump in Power, Jury Told, BLOOMBERG, Jan. 12, 2023, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ged-any-me ans-necessary-to-keep-trump-in-power-jury-told?leadSource=uverify%20wall (defense attorney in Proud Boys trial “claimed it was Trump who ‘unleashed the mob’ that breached the Capitol with his fiery speech to supporters earlier that morning”); Kyle Cheney, Jan. 6 defendant wants jurors to blame Trump, not him, for decision to breach Capitol, POLITICO, Apr. 13, 2022, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/1 ... -donald-tr ump-00025019 (“Though dozens of defendants have argued in court filings that they believed Trump had authorized the assault on the Capitol, judges have largely rejected that contention and said rioters should be held to account for their own actions. But whether a jury sees that argument differently will be an important test that could reverberate across hundreds of other cases.”).
4 Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, 117th Cong. H.R. Rep. 117-663 (Dec. 22, 2022).
This Court expresses neither agreement nor disagreement with that conclusion.
5 E.g., Josh Dawsey, Shayna Jacobs, Carol D. Leonnig, Justine McDaniel, Trump calls for protests of what he claims is his imminent arrest, WASHINGTON POST, Mar. 18, 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... -new-york/.
6 E.g., James Bickerton, Donald Trump’s Protest Call to Arms Sparks Jan. 6 Comparisons, NEWSWEEK, Mar. 18, 2023, https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps- ... rmssparks- jan-6-comparisons-1788702 (“A number of political commentators condemned Trump’s call for protest on social media, with several suggesting he was inciting violence and making an explicit comparison with the January 6 unrest.”).
To be clear, I do not make any finding or express any view as to the accuracy of any of the reports and allegations referenced herein. 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.
7 E.g., Lauren Sforza, Trump attacks Georgia grand jury forewoman over media tour, THE HILL, Feb. 22, 2023, https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec ... ksgeorgia- grand-jury-forewoman-over-media-tour/ (quoting Mr. Trump’s social media post, “Now you have an extremely energetic young woman, the (get this!) ‘foreperson’ of the Racist D.A.’s Special Grand Jury, going around and doing a Media Tour revealing, incredibly, the Grand Jury’s inner workings & thoughts”); Peter Wade, Trump Has Roger Stone Jurors Fearing for Their Safety: ‘It Seems Like Danger Is Coming to Me’, ROLLING STONE, Apr. 16, 2020, https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... ogerstone- jurors-fear-for-their-safety-985571/ (“All 12 of the jurors in the Roger Stone case have expressed fear in court filings on Wednesday. They worry they will continue to be harassed and they fear for the safety of themselves and their families if their identities are revealed. According to The National Law Journal, jurors cited tweets from President Trump and remarks from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones as the reason ‘the threats to the jurors’ safety and privacy persist’ after the trial ended in November.”); Brennan Center for Justice, In His Own Words: The President’s Attacks on the Courts (last updated Feb. 14, 2020), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... dents-atta cks-courts; Jason Szep and Linda So, Trump campaign demonized two Georgia election workers – and death threats followed, REUTERS, Dec. 1, 2021, https://www.reuters.com/inve stigates/special-report/usa-election-threats-georgia/ (“Desperate to overturn his election loss, Donald Trump and his team spun a sprawling voter-fraud fiction, casting two rank-and-file election workers, a mother and her daughter, as the main villains. The women endured months of death threats and racist taunts – and one went into hiding.”); Stuti Mishra, Trump’s fresh attacks on Georgia election workers could land him in legal trouble, expert says, THE INDEPENDENT, Jan. 5, 2023, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/ameri cas/us-politics/trump-georgia-election-ruby-freeman-b2256377.html (“Mr Trump has used his social media platform, Truth Social, to fuel conspiracy theories aimed at Georgia official Ruby Freeman – who has been a repeated subject of the former president’s attacks since the 2020 election.”).
8 E.g., Dan Berman, Trial in one of E. Jean Carroll’s rape defamation cases against Trump is delayed, CNN, Mar. 20, 2023, https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/19/politics/e-jean-carroll -trump-defamation-trial/index.html; Erik Larson, Trump May Face Anonymous Jury in Hi gh-Prof i l e De f ama t i o n Tr i a l , BLOOMBERG, Ma r . 11, 2023, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -trialmay- get-anonymous-jury#xj4y7vzkg; Gustaf Kilander, Two other Trump accusers can testify in E Jean Carroll rape defamation case as Access Hollywood tape admitted, THE INDEPENDENT, Mar 10, 2023, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... cas/us-pol itics/trump-e-jean-carroll-rape-lawsuit-b2298323.html; Chris Pandolfo, Marta Dhanis, Judge allows Trump Access Hollywood tape in E. Jean Carroll lawsuit, FOX NEWS, Mar 10, 2023, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge- ... e-jean-car roll-lawsuit; Nina Pullano, In Trump rape lawsuit, judge weighs ‘quid pro quo’ DNA offer, COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE, Feb. 10, 2023, https://www.courthousenews.com/in-trumprape- lawsuit-judge-weighs-quid-pro-quo-dna-offer/; Dan Mangan, Trump mistook rape accuser E. Jean Carroll for ex-wife Marla Maples in deposition about photo, CNBC, Jan. 18, 2023, https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/19/trump-b ... arroll-was -wife-in-photo.html; Jared Gans, Judge rejects Trump’s motion to dismiss E. Jean Carroll sexual assault lawsuit, THE HILL, Jan. 13, 2023, https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles /3812997-judge-rejects-trumps-motion-to-dismiss-e-jean-carroll-sexual-assault-lawsuit/.
9 United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 971 (2d Cir. 1990).
10 United States v. Kadir, 718 F.3d 115, 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Pica, 692 F.3d 79, 88 (2d Cir. 2012)).
11 Id. (quoting Pica, 692 F.3d at 88); see also United States v. Paccione, 949 F.2d 1183, 1192 (2d Cir. 1991); United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1364-65 (2d Cir. 1985).
12 Indeed, in what reportedly was the first case in the United States to require jury anonymity, the judge, a former member of this Court, ordered anonymity on his own motion. Abraham Abramovsky and Jonathan I. Edelstein, Anonymous Juries: In Exigent Circumstances Only, 13 ST. JOHN’S J. LEGAL COMMENT 457, 457-58 (1999). His action was upheld on appeal. United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 140-43 (2d Cir. 1979).
13 E.g., Thomas, 757 F.2d at 1364-65; Barnes, 604 F.2d at 141-43.
14 During a previous investigation of Mr. Trump, law enforcement officials prepared for potentially violent demonstrations by his supporters. E.g., David Klepper, Trump’s angry words spur warnings of real violence, AP, Aug. 16, 2022, https://apnews.com/article/ghis laine-maxwell-social-media-donald-trump-mar-a-lago-31741bb13f708ee68b5235926233 41eb (“A growing number of ardent Donald Trump supporters seem ready to strike back against the FBI or others who they believe go too far in investigating the former president. Law enforcement officials across the country are warning and being warned about an increase in threats and the potential for violent attacks on federal agents or buildings in the wake of the FBI’s search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home.”).
15 E.g., Sforza, supra n.6 (quoting Mr. Trump’s social media post, “Now you have an extremely energetic young woman, the (get this!) ‘foreperson’ of the Racist D.A.’s Special Grand Jury, going around and doing a Media Tour revealing, incredibly, the Grand Jury’s inner workings & thoughts”); Wade, supra n.6 (“All 12 of the jurors in the Roger Stone case have expressed fear in court filings on Wednesday. They worry they will continue to be harassed and they fear for the safety of themselves and their families if their identities are revealed. According to The National Law Journal, jurors cited tweets from President Trump and remarks from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones as the reason ‘the threats to the jurors’ safety and privacy persist’ after the trial ended in November. . . . [A]round the time of Stone’s guilty verdict, Trump and others latched on to a Facebook post written by the jury’s forewoman, where she expressed kind words for the prosecutors in the case, bashed Trump, and called his supporters racists. Trump called her biased in his tweets and said at a rally that Stone’s verdict was a ‘miscarriage of justice.’”); Dan Mangan, Trump slams Roger Stone juror right before she testifies at retrial request hearing, CNBC, Feb. 26, 2020, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/25/roger-s ... r-in-heari ng-on-new-trial.html (“[T]he judge barred the public from the courtroom for that hearing [for a new trial], saying that tweets by Trump and others may have raised the risk of harassment to jurors who might be testifying there.”).
16 See supra n.7. See also Ivana Saric, The times Trump has advocated for violence, AXIOS, May 2, 2022, https://www.axios.com/2022/05/02/trump- ... residency; John Cassidy, Trump’s Threats of Violence Are Too Dangerous to Disregard, THE NEW YORKER, Oct. 4, 2022, https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-colu ... f-violence -are-too-dangerous-to-disregard; Fabiola Cineas, Donald Trump is the accelerant: A comprehensive timeline of Trump encouraging hate groups and political violence, VOX, Jan. 9, 2021, https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-viol ... ate-speech. The Court expresses no view, one way or another, as to whether Mr. Trump’s statements and/or actions constitute “violent rhetoric.”
17 949 F.2d 1183 (2d Cir. 1991).
18 Id. at 1192.
************************
Trump Rape Case Jury Will Be Anonymous Due to MAGA Threats of Violence: The judge in E. Jean Carroll’s rape lawsuit ordered jurors to be fully hidden from the public, citing Trump and his followers’ credible threats of violence.
by Jose Pagliery
Political Investigations Reporter
Published Mar. 23, 2023 1:06PM ET
Long Shadow of Trumpworld Carnage
Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast/Getty/Reuters
Former President Donald Trump’s persistent threats—and those of his most vicious followers—have prompted a New York federal judge to take the remarkable step of keeping the American public from ever finding out the names of the jurors who will decide whether the real estate tycoon raped the journalist E. Jean Carroll decades ago.
“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,” U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan wrote on Thursday.
The judge noted how several MAGA-loyal insurrectionists who violently attacked Congress on Jan. 6, 2021—and later got caught—have themselves argued in court that they were there at Trump’s behest. He also elaborated on Trump’s long history of stoking tensions by targeting the justice system.
“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,” he added. “And it bears mention that Mr. Trump repeatedly has attacked courts, judges, various law enforcement officials and other public officials, and even individual jurors in other matters.”
In his decision, the judge laid out how the anonymity will apply to prospective jurors as they’re being questioned—and whoever is picked will get special protection.
“The names, addresses, and places of employment of prospective jurors… shall not be revealed,” he wrote.
That means the American public will be barred from knowing who is on the panel that is scheduled to make a historic decision: whether or not Trump raped Carroll inside a high-end New York City department store in the mid-1990s. The time has long since passed for criminal charges to be filed, but Carroll has used a new rape survivor law in New York state to bring a civil lawsuit against the former president. The trial is scheduled to take place next month.
But the added protection for jurors comes with severely strict measures. The judge said jurors must all stay together during any daytime pause in the trial, and they will be escorted at all times by the U.S. Marshals Service. Jurors won’t even be allowed to go out for lunch on their own. They’ll be accompanied by marshals—or have the agents deliver them lunch.
On top of all that, jurors will be quietly shepherded out of the Manhattan federal courthouse every day during the trial.
“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,” the judge ordered.
Neither lawyers for Carroll nor Trump objected to the measures.