The empanelment of an anonymous jury is allowed only where (1) there are strong grounds for concluding that it is necessary to ensure juror protection and (2) reasonable safeguards are adopted by the trial court to minimize any risk of infringement upon the fundamental rights of the accused. (People v. Thomas (2012) 53 Cal.4th 771, 788.) Anonymous juries may infer that the dangerousness of those on trial required their anonymity, thereby implicating defendants’ right to a presumption of innocence. (Ibid.)
Accordingly, even if empanelment of anonymous jury is properly allowed the trial court should take precautions — including ameliorative instructions — to minimize the risk the jury will perceive the defendant as dangerous. .” (People v. Lopez (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 484, ____[p. 2].) “As to the presumption of innocence, federal cases have recognized that ‘the danger that the jury might infer that the need for anonymity was attributable to the defendant’s character is minimized when the trial court gives the jurors a plausible and nonprejudicial reason for hiding their identities.'” (Thomas, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 788 [prejudice to defendant was minimized by trial court’s explanation numbers were used to protect jurors’ privacy in light of media interest], quoting United States v. Ross (11th Cir. 1994) 33 F.3d 1507, 1520 [district court properly minimized prejudicial effect on defendant by explaining it used numbers to insulate jurors from improper communications from either side and was not a reflection on the defense]; see United States v. Shryock (9th Cir. 2003) 342 F.3d 948, 972 [court minimized prejudice to defendant by instructing the jury that the reason for their anonymity was to protect their privacy from “curiosity-seekers”].)
For example, in Lopez the judge advised the prospective jurors they would be identified by the last four digits of their badge numbers “to protect [their] privacy and [their] security.” “Thus, far from minimizing any risk Lopez posed to the jury, the court highlighted possible security concerns, although it did not specifically connect those concerns to Lopez.” ((People v. Lopez, supra, 65 Cal.App.5th at ____ [pp. 21-22].)
Sample Instructions:
The use of your juror identification numbers, rather than your names, is a [routine] [normal] procedure which is required in all cases [to protect you from unwarranted intrusions from the media] and has nothing to do with the defendant[s] or this case.
You may not consider the use of this procedure for any purpose or draw any inferences from it at all. Do not consider it as evidence of anything and do not permit it to enter into your view of the evidence or your later deliberations. Such procedures should have no bearing on your determination of whether or not the defendant has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
F 101.1 Inst 1
[As a matter of procedure] [and] [To protect you from unwarranted intrusions from the media], you will be referred to by your juror identification number rather than your name during the trial.
You may not consider the use of this procedure for any purpose or draw any inferences from it at all. Do not consider it as evidence of anything and do not permit it to enter into your view of the evidence or your later deliberations. Such procedures should have no bearing on your determination of whether or not the defendant has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
F 101.1 Inst 2
See also generally,
F 204 Inst 3 (a-f) Cautionary Instruction: Courtroom Security
F 204 Inst 4 Courtroom Security: Necessity Of Repeating Presumption Of Innocence
F 204 Note 14 Courtroom Security And Physical Restraints Distinguished
F 204 Note 15 Courtroom Security: Whether Audience Seating Arrangement Necessitates Cautionary Instruction
F 204 Note 16 Courtroom Security: Self-Representation—Exclusion Of Pro Se Defendant From Sidebar Conferences
F 204 Note 17 Anonymous Victim Or Witness
F 204 Note 18 Shackling Of Defense Witness
