Anonymous jury of Trump’s peers: Courtroom secrecy and the former president (Feat. Chris Keleher)
Just one month shy of a trial in E. Jean Carroll's rape case, a federal judge revealed, without explanation, that he is considering empaneling an anonymous jury. A relatively recent phenomenon, anonymous juries became an increasingly relied upon tool to protect those called to serve in high-profile trials, including mafia, terrorism, and sex trafficking cases. In theory, they’re supposed to protect jurors from intimidation and safeguard their privacy from too much media scrutiny. In practice, whether you have one depends on many factors, like jurisdiction. On the latest episode of Law&Crime's podcast, appellate attorney Christopher Keleher details the fascinating history of anonymous juries, laying out their benefits and drawbacks. Keleher also explains why Trump might not know who's deciding Carroll's lawsuit — but the former president probably will know the identities of any prospective jurors if prosecutors charge him in New York City. He wrote the 2010 University of San Francisco Law Review article "The Repercussions of Anonymous Juries." See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.