DOJ-OGR-00009755.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 63 of 66 The submissions by Juror No. 50 have questionable merit, have not been ruled upon, and implicate an ongoing investigation by the parties and the Court into juror misconduct. Certainly, at least at this stage of the proceedings, the submissons are not “Judicial documents” and until the issues around Juror No. 50’s motion for intervention and discovery have been resolved they should remain sealed. If the Court believes Juror No. 50’s requests merit judicial document status the seal should remain. The requests would be afforded the lowest presumption of public access and compelling reasons to maintain the sealed status exist. Juror No. 50 has demonstrated a lack of reliability and an appetite for publicity. Should the documents be released the sotto voce comments regarding Juror No. 50’s intent, state of mind, and actions will be fodder for the media and may influence the memories of other potential witnesses. Documents regularly remain sealed where public release would “compromis|[¢] the interest in the integrity and security of [an] investigation,” /n re Sealed Search Warrants Issued June 4 & 5, 2008, No. 088-—M-—208 (DRH), 2008 WL 5667021, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. July 14, 2008). Conclusion The purpose of voir dire is “to expose bias or prejudice on the part of veniremen,” and there “there must be sufficient information elicited on voir dire to permit a defendant to intelligently exercise not only his challenges for cause, but also his peremptory challenges.” Barnes, 604 F.2d at 139. “Voir dire [thus] plays an essential role in protecting the right to trial by an impartial jury.” Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 468. 56 DOJ-OGR-00009755