Cloaked mob jury to weigh 'Secrets'
Is anonymity needed to protect jurors -- or does it go too far and prejudice the panel?
By Jeff Coen and Michael Higgins
Tribune staff reporters
Published June 19, 2007
When the much-anticipated Family Secrets mob conspiracy trial opens Tuesday, jurors will share their backgrounds, views on issues and reading habits -- but not their names.
In a rare move, the judge presiding over the landmark trial decided weeks ago to seat an anonymous jury. The five men accused of racketeering conspiracy for their alleged roles in controlling the Chicago Outfit will know who is deciding their fates only by court-assigned numbers.
In a sealed motion, the prosecution cited the safety of jurors for keeping their identities secret, even from defense lawyers in the case, those lawyers said. U.S. District Judge James Zagel agreed that was the best course.
Experts say seating an anonymous jury is a controversial practice. Judges must weigh juror safety against a defendant's right to an impartial panel. The risk is that the need for their anonymity could leave jurors thinking the defendants must be dangerous. Lawyers in the Family Secrets case said they strongly objected for just that reason.
"Now, of course, the jury can infer that these must be pretty nefarious people," said Ralph Meczyk, the lawyer for Anthony Doyle, a defendant in the case that is set to begin Tuesday with jury selection. "That puts in their mind the belief that we're dealing with very, very dangerous defendants."
In seeking to seat anonymous juries, prosecutors typically argue that panel members could be at risk, or at least that the nature of a case could leave jurors apprehensive if the defendants know who they are and where they live.
This is believed to be the first use of an anonymous jury in Chicago's federal court in 15 years, but there is precedent for the move here and across the country, particularly in organized-crime prosecutions.
The last time it was used here was at the trial of mobster Ernest Rocco Infelice, who was convicted in 1992 of racketeering and murder conspiracy.
Recently, an anonymous jury heard a Ku Klux Klan trial in Mississippi, and another decided the fate of reputed mobster John Gotti Jr. last year in New York.
Meanwhile, two more defendants from an original group of 14 pleaded guilty Monday in the Family Secrets case. Nicholas Ferriola, 32, admitted he was part of the criminal conspiracy, while Joseph Venezia, 71, pleaded guilty to being part of an illegal gambling operation. Left to stand trial in the conspiracy that allegedly included 18 slayings are reputed mob bosses Joey "the Clown" Lombardo, James Marcello and Frank Calabrese Sr. as well as Paul "the Indian" Schiro and Doyle, a former Chicago police officer.
The 6th Amendment guarantees all defendants the right to "a speedy and public trial." But as some organized-crime and terrorism defendants have learned, that doesn't necessarily include the right to know who is sitting in judgment on the jury.
Judges can seat anonymous juries for safety reasons and to prevent juror tampering, though the move usually draws cries of unfairness from the defense.
"From the defense side, you worry that the signal it sends is: We've got to be really careful here. These are dangerous individuals," said Andrew Leipold, a law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "That's not the mind-set you want jurors to start a case with."
But the judge could have taken into account, Leipold said, that Lombardo, for example, is accused of killing a government witness -- an allegation that, if true, shows a willingness to use violence to subvert the justice system. He is blamed for the 1974 killing of Bensenville businessman Daniel Seifert, who was scheduled to testify against Lombardo in a Teamsters pension-fraud trial.
For judges, Leipold said, "it's difficult in that so much of this is predictions. What's the likelihood the jury will be tampered with? How likely is it that jury will be biased against the defense?"
Judges also must factor in the right of the public and media to an open proceeding, Leipold said.
In the George Ryan corruption trial last year, for example, reporters at the Tribune used publicly available juror information to discover that two jurors had misled the court about their criminal backgrounds. A federal judge dismissed the jurors as a result.
In the Family Secrets case, it's unclear exactly what evidence persuaded Zagel to keep the jury anonymous. Prosecutors made their arguments in a Feb. 16 motion that was filed under seal.
But anonymous juries are more common when defendants are allegedly part of a large criminal organization, with members outside the courtroom who have a strong interest in the trial's outcome.
The process to select the Family Secrets jury began earlier this year when prospective jurors in a special pool had their backgrounds checked and were sent questionnaires that asked for in-depth personal information. In addition to personal data, the jurors were asked dozens of questions about their opinions and perceptions of the justice system, the FBI and organized crime.
Jurors were asked what they read and listen to as well as what TV shows they might watch that touch on the mob. One prospective juror listed "The Simpsons," apparently a tongue-in-cheek reference to the character "Fat Tony" and his band of hoodlums from fictional Springfield's underworld.
Also among the questions was whether the prospective juror had ever written to the editor of a newspaper, and on what topic.
On Tuesday morning, the first 25 possible jurors will be led into the courtroom for questioning in person. Although they will not be shielded visually by a partition, they will be identified only by number. Another 25 will follow in the afternoon, and that pattern will repeat at least through Thursday until about 18 are picked. Twelve will be permanent jurors, the rest alternates.
Some of the defense attorneys in the case said because of the detailed questionnaire, they may wind up knowing a bit more about each juror than they would have otherwise. Still, it's a handicap not to know such basics as a person's name or where they live.
Marcello's lawyer, Marc Martin, said he, too, objected to the anonymous panel. He noted he has practiced law for 20 years and has never heard of a case of jury tampering in Chicago's federal court.
Openness in government is important, and jury tampering -- in real life, as opposed to Hollywood films -- is exceedingly rare, agreed Shari Seidman Diamond, law professor at Northwestern University.
"I'm not persuaded that [anonymous juries] are required or that they're useful or that they contribute to justice," Diamond said. "We prefer to have the jury be a source of light, not shadow."
But Lombardo's lawyer, Rick Halprin, said he's sure the judge has plenty of reasons to want the jurors' identities withheld in such a high-profile case.
"Frankly, I think the gravest danger the judge perceives are crank phone calls and media scrutiny," Halprin said. "He doesn't want the same kind of fiasco they had in the Ryan trial."
----------
jcoen@tribune.com
mjhiggins@tribune.com
