DOJ-OGR-00005270.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 362 Filed 10/20/21 Page2of4 with benefits to both the defendant and to society as a whole.”). Voir dire is a critical stage of criminal proceedings, and the public interest in favor of access to voir dire is correspondingly weighty. United States v. Shkreli, 260 F. Supp. 3d 257, 259-60 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (“Press coverage of voir dire, no less than coverage of opening statements or the cross examination of a key witness, contributes to the fairness of trials.”); accord United States v. Avenatti, 2021 WL 1819679, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2021). Recognizing that interest, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment requires the voir dire process be presumptively open to the press and public. Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, Riverside Cty., 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1984). Juror questionnaires, which are used to facilitate and expedite the jury selection process, are subject to the same presumption of openness as that which attaches to voir dire generally. See United States v. King, 140 F.3d 76, 82 (2d Cir. 1998) (including juror questionnaires when analyzing whether limited closure of voir dire violated public’s right of access); see also Order, In re The Washington Post, No. 15-1293 (4th Cir. Apr. 27, 2015) (stating that “the public enjoys a presumptive right of access to voir dire proceedings, including voir dire questionnaires”); Jn re Access to Jury Questionnaires, 37 A.3d 879, 886 (D.C. 2012) (“Every court that has decided the issue has treated jury questionnaires as part of the voir dire process and thus subject to the presumption of public access.” (citing Jn re South Carolina Press Ass’n, 946 F.2d 1037, 1041 (4th Cir. 1991), and collecting other cases)); Stephens Media, LLC v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 221 P.3d 1240, 1245 (Nev. 2009); Forum Commce’ns Co. v. Paulson, 752 N.W.2d 177, 182-83 (N.D. 2008); Ohio ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ’g Co. v. Bond, 781 N.E.2d 180, 187-89 (Ohio 2002); United States v. Bonds, No. C 07-00732 SI, 2011 WL 902207, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2011); United States v. McDade, 929 F. Supp. 815, 817 n.4 (E.D. Pa. 1996); In re Washington DOJ-OGR-00005270