DOJ-OGR-00006176.jpg

Caash: 220 OCKBP AEN Dumument4ins Aitel111B21 Paty? afat 3 Page 2 The defendant cannot meet this strict standard. On October 27, 2021, after receiving the parties’ proposed joint questionnaire discussing the parties’ respective positions on the issue of juror names (Dkt. No. 367) and letters from the parties (Dkt. Nos. 372, 373, and 375), the Court ordered that it will provide counsel with the “corresponding list of juror names and assigned juror numbers on November 16 at the commencement of voir dire.” (Dkt. No. 376). The Court has since ordered that peremptory strikes will not be exercised until November 29. (Dkt. 413). The defendant asks this Court to release the names of prospective jurors as soon as the written questionnaires are distributed. (Dkt. No. 407). In essence, the defendant is asking for extra time— on top of the nearly two weeks it will have with prospective juror names—to conduct additional research on the prospective jurors, but the defendant offers no good reason for the Court to reconsider its position and grant this extended period of time. As the Government submitted in its October 26, 2021 letter (Dkt. No. 372), the purpose of the jury questionnaire process is to streamline challenges for cause. Prospective jurors’ names are not necessary for that process.' “ [T]he purpose of the voir dire is to ascertain disqualifications, not to afford individual analysis in depth to permit a party to choose a jury that fits into some mold that he believes appropriate for his case.” United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 138 (2d Cir. 1979) (citations omitted). The defendant cites two cases in support of her motion for reconsideration, but those cases are inapposite. In Sines v. Kessler, 17 Civ. 72 (KNM) (W.D. Va.), the Court ordered the provision ' The defendant writes that it is “unaware of any other recent high-profile case in which a written juror questionnaire was used and the Court withheld the names of the jurors from counsel following the completion of the questionnaires.” (Dkt. No. 407 at 2 n.1). The Government cited such cases in its October 26, 2021 letter. See Dkt. No. 372 at 1-2 (citing United States v. Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (KMW); United States v. Kaloyeros, et al., 16 Cr. 776 (VEC); United States v. Percoco, et al., 16 Cr. 776 (VEC)). DOJ-OGR-00006176