DOJ-OGR-00005271.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 362 Filed 10/20/21 Page 3 of 4

Post, No. 92-301, 1992 WL 233354, at *2 (D.D.C. July 23, 1992); Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court, 228 Cal. App. 3d 77, 89 (1991).

The presumption of openness that attaches to voir dire—including juror questionnaires— “may be overcome only by an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”’ Shkreli, 260 F. Supp. 3d at 260 (quoting Press–Enter. Co., 464 U.S. at 510). “Where the overriding interest to be protected is the defendant’s right to a fair trial, the court must make specific findings that ‘there is a substantial probability that the defendant’s right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent and, second, reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect the defendant’s fair trial rights.”’ Id. (quoting ABC, Inc. v. Stewart, 360 F.3d 90, 98–99 (2d Cir. 2004)). “The Second Circuit has explained that the party seeking to restrict press access bears a ‘heavy’ burden.” Id. (quoting Stewart, 360 F.3d at 106).

Here, the defense manifestly fails to carry its “heavy burden.” Id. The defendant’s request to seal provides the Court with no basis on which to make the specific factual findings required to conceal voir dire, including the parties’ joint juror questionnaire, from the public. Stewart, 360 F.3d at 98. In an effort to justify the defendant’s request, the Letter speculates that “media coverage may prejudice the jury selection process.” Letter 1. Such conclusory speculation cannot overcome the deeply rooted presumption of openness applicable to voir dire. Accordingly, the Court should order the parties to file the proposed juror questionnaire and proposed voir dire on the public docket.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Katie Townsend
Katie Townsend
REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
1156 15th St. NW, Suite 1020

3

DOJ-OGR-00005271