Everything in this thread's very interesting. Thanks for the info, guys!
As for the anonymous jury:
There's adequate legal precedent for anonymous juries if the prosecution convinces the judge that naming the jurors would be dangerous to them. Of course it prejudices people. But during the voire dire (jury selection process) jurors are asked, by both sides, if they've heard of the defendants before, have any prejudice against them, read anything that might affect their opinion, etc. Jurors who want to stay on the jury will deny any such prejudice. If the defendants are convicted and they appeal on the basis that the anonymity effort prejudiced the jury, the appellate judge can always claim that the jurors had been asked if they were prejudiced, that they denied it--and the defense accepted them as jurors.

More fundamentally: an appeal can be based only on new evidence surfacing, or a provable contention that the defendants didn't get a fair trial. But the appellate judge is the decider. They have their own prejudices. And they have their politics: they won't want to put known criminals back on the street because of a technicality. Nor do they like to overrule fellow judges--looks bad going forward, when they might be up for consideration for a higher court.
Bottom line: when a case goes to trial, the issue isn't innocence or guilt, or even right or wrong: it's who wins and who loses.