United States v. Herron
Facts
The defendant was charged in a 23-count indictment alleging leadership of a violent racketeering enterprise involved in murders, attempted murder, robbery, firearms offenses, and narcotics trafficking. The government sought an anonymous and semi-sequestered jury based on the seriousness of the charges, prior witness intimidation in the defendant's state murder trial, and expected publicity tied to the defendant's local celebrity as a rap artist and prior media coverage. Separately, in 2009 the government obtained an order under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c)(1) and (d) requiring Sprint to disclose historical cell-site information for a phone used by the defendant. Although the phone was subscribed in another person's name, the government's own application stated that the defendant used, possessed, and acknowledged ownership of the phone when arrested.
Issue
Whether the court should empanel an anonymous and partially sequestered jury in light of the charged conduct, prior interference with witnesses, and likely publicity. Whether the defendant had standing to challenge acquisition of historical cell-site data, and if so whether suppression or a Franks hearing was warranted despite the government's reliance on a § 2703 order obtained before later cell-site cases.
Rule
An anonymous jury may be empaneled when there is strong reason to believe the jury needs protection and the court takes reasonable precautions to minimize prejudice and protect the defendant's rights, including voir dire designed to uncover bias and a plausible nonprejudicial explanation for anonymity. Fourth Amendment standing exists where the defendant shows a legitimate expectation of privacy, including possession, exclusive use, and the right to exclude others from the property searched. Even if a search later proves constitutionally defective, suppression is unavailable when officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on a statute or court order, unless the issuing judge was misled by knowing or reckless falsehoods or critical omissions under Franks.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
If the district court plans to identify jurors by number, use an extensive questionnaire with defense input, and instruct jurors that these measures are to reduce media and public intrusion, is an anonymous jury most likely proper?