Perez v. People, 2013 CO 22

Perez charged with sexual assault and enhancer; Rizo case decided in companion case; trial court referred to jurors by three-digit numbers in open court while sharing jurors' names with parties.
Defense objected that numbering would imply guilt; the court overruled, citing privacy benefits and past practice.
Jurors completed questionnaires with names; parties received identifying information.
The court explained the policy to the jury and instructed on presumption of innocence before deliberations.
Perez was convicted and sentenced to 24 years to life; court of appeals affirmed; majority holds practice did not undermine presumption of innocence.
Court notes scope for future rule-making on the practice, but applies no anonymous-jury framework to this case; Perez’s rights not violated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether numbering jurors creates an anonymous jury	Perez argues framework for anonymous juries applies	Perez contends it undermines presumption of innocence	Not an anonymous jury; framework inapplicable
Whether presumption of innocence was undermined by numbering jurors	Numbers imply danger or guilt of Perez	Policy aimed at privacy, not defendant-specific guilt	Presumption of innocence not undermined

Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1976) (presumption of innocence as a due process component)
Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358 (4th Cir. 2012) (anonymous-jury framework requires case-specific findings and safeguards)
Morales, 655 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 2011) (concerns with anonymous juries in protecting juror identity and voir dire)
U.S. v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507 (11th Cir. 1994) (anonymous-jury concerns for presumption of innocence)
State v. Tucker, 2003 WI 12, 259 Wis.2d 484, 657 N.W.2d 374 (Wis. 2003) (discusses numbers jury and related protections)
State v. Brown, 280 Kan. 65, 118 P.3d 1273 (Kan. 2005) (withholding juror information endangers presumption of innocence)