Protecting 'El Chapo's' Jurors: Where do we draw the line?

Americans have many expectations when summoned for jury duty, but an assignment of two bodyguards and marshal accompanied transportation is not what usually comes to mind. These are some of the security measures that have been imposed to ensure the safety of the jurors that were chosen to sit on El Chapo’s panel. Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzmán is on trial for running the most infamous drug cartel in the world. He is allegedly responsible for smuggling thousands of lethal narcotics, laundering more than $14 billion, trafficking illegal firearms, and murdering thousands. Not only are the jurors to remain anonymous, but the alleged drug lord was required to swear he would not order the killing of any of the jurors. An assurance that was not all that settling to the twelve individuals responsible for choosing his fate. The fear amongst the jurors made it particularly difficult to seat the panel, including several expressing “extreme anxiety” and one being rushed to the hospital following a severe panic attack.

So what is the solution for protecting those who are fulfilling their civic duty in some of the most critical and dangerous criminal trials? While the fear accompanying the El Chapo trial is not the norm, it poses an interesting question as to what extent our judicial system can and will go to protect our jurors. And so long as the constitutional right to jury trials remains, this problem will continue to arise. Today, access to information is readily available at the click of a mouse, so it’s no surprise that even concealing the names, addresses and occupations of the El Chapo jurors feels insufficient to ensure protection. Ironically, the trials that give jurors anonymity are the ones that receive the most media coverage. So how do we really protect these individuals both during the trial–and more importantly– post-verdict?

In the past, courts have gone to extensive lengths to protect witnesses where their safety is jeopardized. For example, witnesses have been allowed to testify in disguise, or even behind a screen–completely shielded from the defendant’s sight. These types of precautions have been permitted despite the infringement on the defendant's constitutional right to confront his accuser. This suggests that these precautions for individuals who are not accusers, but rather civilians fulfilling their civic duty would be acceptable and encouraged. Arguably, shielding the juror could taint a defendant’s right to the presumption of innocence. But isn’t that presumption already tainted by requiring the defendant to swear not to order the death of any juror? Or by the bodyguards and marshal escorts provided for the jury? 

While it may be difficult to strike a perfect balance of protecting jurors and ensuring constitutional guarantees to defendants, I believe that we should err on the side of protecting those who are serving the judicial system. Implementing a one-way screen that physically blocks the jurors from the view of the defendant would allow the jurors to focus on accurate fact-finding, rather than be distracted by the fear and anxiety that accompanies serving on a panel for someone like El Chapo.