United States v. Wilson
925 F. Supp. 2d 410
| E.D.N.Y | 2013Background
- Defendant Ronell Wilson faces a capital penalty phase with a jury deciding death or life imprisonment.
- Prospective jurors will begin questionnaires April 3, 2013; voir dire starts April 17, 2013; penalty phase begins May 20, 2013.
- Wilson filed three motions: 1) identify source of a news article; 2) restrain parties from speaking to the press; 3) appoint a consultant for possible change of venue.
- The court denies the first motion to identify the news-source; this information may come from many non-government sources.
- The court denies the press-communication motion without prejudice, finding alternative remedies may mitigate publicity effects.
- The court denies the consultant appointment motion without prejudice, linking it to whether voir dire is sufficiently searching to justify a venue change.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source of news article | Wilson seeks government-led source discovery. | Government inquiry is unnecessary and intrusive at this stage. | Denied. |
| Gag order restraining press | Wilson seeks to bar all parties from speaking to the press. | Alternative remedies can mitigate prejudice; a gag order is premature. | Denied without prejudice. |
| Appointment of a consultant for venue change | Consultant may assist in determining whether to seek venue change. | Voir dire is key; consultant unnecessary at this stage. | Denied without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re App. of Dow Jones & Co., 842 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1988) (consider alternatives before gag orders in publicity cases)
- Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (U.S. Supreme Court 1966) (publicity and trial fairness must be balanced with remedies)
- Quattrone v. United States, 402 F.3d 304 (2d Cir. 2005) (prejudice and publicity considerations in trials)
- United States v. Fell, 531 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2008) (deference to trial judge on voir dire findings)
- United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2007) (robust voir dire to guard against pre-trial publicity)
- United States v. Sabhnani, 599 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2010) (searching voir dire as key to venue change assessment)
- United States v. Stevens, 83 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 1996) (jury capable of impartial verdict despite publicity)
- United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003) (importance of searching voir dire in pre-trial publicity contexts)
- United States v. Fell, 531 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2008) (emphasizes deference to judge's voir dire assessment)