Hey Sleuth Bee,
I personally would be surprised if the jury for TS's trial were sequestered. Maybe fear of a COVID-infected juror mid-trial will make a difference. I agree that would be a big deal. But by that standard,
all juries for trials lasting more than one day would have to be sequestered. And not only is that just not going to happen, even sequestration wouldn't be a guarantee against juror infection. (A false negative test result could happen with a juror at the beginning, for example. Or a baliff could pass the virus on as baliffs, the jury bus driver, hotel personnel, and so forth won't be sequestered.)
Sequestration is also costly and there have already been lots of court-related expenses for COVID (Cleaning courthouse, retrofits, etc.) Testing is also costly and rapid tests are not available everywhere. Finally, rapid COVID test results are less accurate than the takes-days slower PCR tests. Some estimate that
half of the rapid negative results are wrong. In other words, half of the people who are told they are negative for COVID are positive. But even the slower PCR tests can be be wrong too. One study showed a 29% false negative rate.
Here’s Why We Can’t Rely on Rapid Coronavirus Testing
While we feel THIS trial is incredibly important (and it is) any criminal trial is important for the people involved and for the long-term maintenance of social order. So I don't think a decision can be made for sequestration based on the perceived "importance" of a given trial. And if there was a ranking of trial importance, how could that be done? If it's a murder trial, number of people killed? Only one person here. Would this trial be less important than a trial that involved two murders? Or three? Ugh. Public interest? Yikes. Bad precedent.
I agree there are issues related to rearranging the courtroom seating. But I disagree that all courtrooms are set up the same way. When we saw TS in court in March, she was seated in the jury box. Had jurors been seated there, it certainly
appeared they would have had a full frontal view of the faces of all those at the defense and prosecution tables. All jury boxes are not like that.
Jurors can definitely see at least the sides of the faces of witnesses (although experienced witnesses often turn towards the jury during testimony) when I've been on juries in two different NC counties. But the faces of the defense and prosecution members were mostly viewable from the side depending on where one was seated in the box. And defense attorneys usually blocked the side view of defendents as their facial expressions aren't evidence unless they are on the stand. (On the other hand, some regard the defense's success in positioning Casey Anthony facing the jury as key to her aquittal. Certainly she behaved differently in the presence of the jury. Others blame sequestration. Still others blame the state for overcharging.)
When I've been a juror, those seated at one end towards the middle of the jury box had a good view of the judge and witnesses, side view of everyone else. Seated at the other end of the box, better view of defense/prosecution, less good view of the judge and witnesses.
I understand that sequestration affects the lives of those who are sequestered. And some legal experts have argued that sequestration can lead to poor decision-making by juries, in part because sequestration is so disruptive. Leaving that argument aside, I don't see how one could possibly "ask for volunteers." That's just not how jury selection works. And if that were done, I think it could constitute reversible error.
Finally, Rule 24 of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure state (my italics):
"The court should only sequester jurors in
extraordinary cases. Otherwise, (J)urors should be permitted to separate during all trial recesses, both before and after the case has been submitted to the jury for deliberation. Cautionary instructions as to their conduct during all recesses shall be given to the jurors by the court."
The jury wasn't sequestered in Colorado in the James Holmes case even though the defense requested it because of concerns over media influences during trial and potential juror exposure to inadmissable evidence. And that case involved the killing of 12 people and injury to 70 others.
Earlier someone posted sequestration was needed because TS is violent and bribes people. I can't find that post now, but it's not clear to me how sequestering the jury would be prevent TS from trying to exhibit violence in the courtroom. I also am drawing a blank on when she's been convicted of bribery (and how she could actually bribe an un-sequestered jury. What resources does she have? She's hardly a Mafia boss.)
I don't know what the solution is re: COVID. But I don't think sequestration is a magic bullet. And even if it was, there's still the issue of everyone else-- prosecution, defense, judge, witnesses, court reporters, baliffs, family members....
JMO
