United States District Court, D. Nevada
M. NAVARRO, CHIEF JUDGE.
before the Court is Defendant Ryan W. Payne's
("Defendant's") second Motion regarding Jury
Selection (ECF No. 1673), with Supplement (ECF No. 1683).
The Government filed a Response (ECF No. 1790), and Defendant
filed a Reply (ECF No. 1838).
January 5, 2017, Defendant filed his first Motion regarding
Jury Selection. (ECF No. 1241). The Court granted in part,
denied in part this motion. (ECF No. 1380). In his instant
motion, Defendant makes several similar demands.
Defendant seeks to participate in the juror questionnaire
process, suggesting modifications to the prior questionnaire.
(Mot. 4:8-8-2, ECF No. 1673). Defendant asks for
participation by counsel regarding for-cause and hardship
excusals made prior to the m-person voir dire. (Id.
8:3-7). He asks that the parties meet and confer and submit
agreed-upon prospective jurors to be struck for cause prior
to voir dire. (Id. 8:8-20). He seeks extended
attorney-conducted voir dire because of pretrial
publicity, along with individual sequestered voir
dire when necessary. (Id. 8:21-9:4). Lastly, he
proposes a schedule for voir dire. (Id. 9:5-7). As
part of this schedule, Defendant requests completed
questionnaires be provided to counsel one week prior to jury
selection. (See Ex. B to Mot. at 25, ECF No.
Rule of Criminal Procedure ("Rule") 24 provides
guidance on voir dire:
(1) In General. The court may examine prospective jurors or
may permit the attorneys for the parties to do so.
(2) Court Examination. If the court examines the jurors, it
must permit the attorneys for the parties to:
(A) ask further questions that the court considers proper; or
B submit further questions that the court may ask if it
considers them proper.
Cnm. P. 24(a). First, the Court notes that it is not required
to provide a juror questionnaire, but it has done so.
Further, the parties have no right to be involved in the
questionnaire, yet the Court solicited questions from the
parties and incorporated them into the questionnaire.
(See ECF Nos. 1107, 1639). Moreover, the parties
have no right to personally voir dire the potential
jurors, but the Court allows each party time for follow-up
questions, as this Court has always exercised its discretion
to do under Rule 24.
such, the Court has already allowed Defendant input regarding
the questionnaire. Completed questionnaires will be provided
as soon as they are available. The parties will be involved
in for-cause excusals. In accordance with the District of
Nevada Jury Plan, the Court excuses potential jurors for
hardship. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1863(b)(5).
Defendant fails to cite any authority requiring the Court to
seek his input prior to these hardship excusals. Next, the
Court will not order the parties to meet and confer regarding
potential jurors that may be struck prior to voir
dire for cause; however, the parties are welcome to meet
and confer and file under seal a list of for-cause excusals
by juror number, particularly any for-cause excusals
stipulated to by all parties.
Court has explained multiple times, the Court is conducting
voir dire. (See Order on Mot. for Att'y
Conducted Voir Dire 2:2, ECF No. 1368); (Order on Mot. Jury
Selection 2:3-9, ECF No. 1380). However, as in the previous
trials, the Court will allow timed, attorney-conducted
follow-up questions during the voir dire process for
the upcoming trial. Each Defendant's attorney or pro se
defendant will have fifteen minutes, and the Government will
have thirty minutes. Additionally, in accordance with the
Court's usual procedure, the Court may allow individual
sequestered follow-up voir dire if the Court finds
it to be necessary.
Defendant fails to both point to a defect in the Court's
current procedure and demonstrate any advantages of the
alternate procedure suggested. As the history of this case
indicates, the Court's current procedures resulted in
selecting a jury in two and three days for the prior two
trials. (See ECF Nos. 1552, 2161). Therefore, the
Court finds that the current procedures are
sufficient. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that Defendant's Motion regarding Jury
Selection (ECF No. 1673) is DENIED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions for Joinder (ECF
Nos. 1685, ...