DOJ-OGR-00008986.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 7 of 13

50 will maintain his ability to protect his compelling and legitimate right to privacy, specifically regarding his prior history with sexual assault. Additionally, allowing Juror 50 to intervene will assist this Court in determining how to conduct an appropriate inquiry into the subject, by allowing his an opportunity to fully and fairly brief the Court on the relevant issues. Moreover, the interests of justice and judicial economy will be served if Juror 50 is permitted to intervene at this point in time, as the same will allow Juror 50 to identify and assert any fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination before any hearing is held pursuant to an inquiry directed by the Court.

A. Juror 50’s Request to Intervene

1. Jurors have compelling and legitimate privacy rights.

The United States Supreme Court has explicitly acknowledged that Jurors can have “compelling” and “legitimate” privacy interests that warrants sealing the record as to certain statements given by the jurors. Press-Enter. Co. v Superior Ct. of California, Riverside County, 464 US 501, 511-12 (1984)-. In Press-Enter. Co., the Supreme Court expressly determined that forcing an individual to disclose details of a sexual assault may justify holding closed hearings and sealing the record due to “the embarrassment and emotional trauma from the very disclosure of the episode”. Id. In Press-Enter. Co., Chief Justice Burger further made clear that forced disclosure of past sexual assault suffered by jurors gave rise to a “valid privacy right”. Id.

In United States v. King, the Second Circuit upheld the ruling by the lower court, which allowed parts of the record in that case to be sealed based on the jurors’ privacy interest in intensely personal subjects, as well as upheld the lower court’s finding that such interest was heightened by the intense media scrutiny King attracted from the press. United States v King, 140

7

DOJ-OGR-00008986