Ny Times

Every so often, especially in a Mafia or terrorism trial, a judge will decide to keep secret the identities of the jurors. It is a decision intended to protect the jury from intimidation or corruption, but it also risks sending jurors a message that the defendants are dangerous — and thus worthy of conviction — even before a single piece of evidence has been introduced.

While the federal criminal system permits juries to consider cases in total anonymity, New York State has a more restrictive law that allows the addresses of jurors to be withheld from the public and the parties at a trial, but does not allow their names to be withheld.

Tackling the issue for the first time, a state appeals court this week affirmed the New York statute, ruling that when a judge in Orange County empaneled an anonymous jury to hear the case of a crew of gang members accused of beating a rival, he broke the law and deprived the defendants of a fair trial.

The appellate court ruled in the case of four men — Benigno Aguilar, Alex and Emmanuel Flores and Lucio Ramirez — whom local prosecutors contended were members of an upstate street gang called La Eme. The men were convicted in August 2010 of viciously assaulting a member of a rival gang called BKK with a baseball bat and stabbing him in the chest during a street fight the year before in Newburgh.

Before jury selection, Justice Nicholas DeRosa, who presided at the trial, informed the men’s lawyers that he intended to withhold the names of the prospective jurors and identify them only by number. Justice DeRosa came to the decision on his own, explaining that in recent years several jurors in other cases had told him that they felt uncomfortable walking through the courthouse parking lot, where they occasionally encountered the defendants whose fates they were deciding.

One of the defense lawyers objected to the judge’s decision and told him that keeping the jurors’ names secret would indicate to them “that this is a gang case in which they have to be concerned for their safety.” The lawyer and his colleagues suggested that if Justice DeRosa was concerned about the jurors, he could disclose their names only to the lawyers. But the judge decided against that, arguing that if the lawyers knew the jurors’ names they would have a duty to tell their clients.

The judge also never instructed the jurors that his decision to mask their identities should not be viewed as a reflection on the guilt or innocence of the defendants. [MORE]