jurors and trial jurors. This Protective Order is in effect
immediately and will remain in effect until further order of the
Court. Although individual jurors may choose after trial to
comment on the case publicly and, therefore, to forfeit their
anonymity, the parties, nevertheless, remain prohibited from
publicly disclosing the identity of any juror until further order
of the Court. Any person who violates this Protective Order is
subject to sanctions, including for contempt.

II. Procedure for Review of Juror Questionnaires and In-Person
Voir Dire

With the agreement of the parties the Court began the
process of distributing Juror Questionnaires to the remaining
pool of approximately 450 potential jurors on July 13, 2016,
together with instructions to complete and to return their
Questionnaires no later than August 5, 2016.

Barly in the week of August 8, 2016, the Court will make
available to the parties the completed Juror Questionnaires for
the purpose of the parties’ advance review and conferral
regarding whether any potential jurors should be excused “for
cause” from further participation in the jury-selection process.
The Court directs the parties to hand-deliver to the Court a
joint status report no later than Noon, August 18, 2016, in which
the parties identify (1) the potential jurors the parties agree
should be excused for cause and (2) the potential jurors that
either the government or at least one Defendant believes should

5 - REDACTED JURY MANAGEMENT ORDER AND PROTECTIVE ORDER (#978



voir dire are due by Noon on September 7, 2016).
III. Partial Jury Sequestration

The decision to sequester a jury is within the discretion of
the trial court. United States v. Dufur, 648 F.2d 512, 513 (9th
Cir. 1980). See also United States v. Cabaccang, No. 97-00095,
2010 WL 3000196, at *14 (D. Guam July 28, 2010). Partial jury
sequestration implicates many of the same concerns as juror
anonymity, and, therefore, the court considers the same factors
when determining whether to partially sequester the jury. See
DeLuca, 137 F.3d at 31 n.4 (partial sequestration and juror
anonymity “implicate essentially similar constitutional
concerns.”).

For the reasons already specified, this Court concludes it

is necessary to require a partial sequestration of the 12 trial

jurors and 8 alternate jurors [REDACTED]. As noted, there have

been periodic gatherings of nonparties interested in the case
outside of the public entrance to the Courthouse through which
jurors would normally enter and leave. Although these
demonstrations to date have been without incident, they,

nonetheless, present the potential to influence jurors with

information external to the trial and to impair jurors’ ability
to be impartial and to decide the case solely on the evidence
presented in court and on the Court’s instructions as to the law.

Moreover, because some threats have been made against judicial

8 - REDACTED JURY MANAGEMENT ORDER AND PROTECTIVE ORDER (#978


significant risk that jurors will be contacted or otherwise
exposed to external information and influences about the case
notwithstanding the Court’s ongoing efforts to restrict their
case exposure only to admissible evidence, the parties’ arguments
to the jury, and the Court’s controlling instructions of law.

The Court, therefore, concludes it is necessary to enter a
Protective Order in this case requiring partial juror anonymity
to protect jurors from the possibility of contact by any media or
members of the public. Based on Shryock the Court finds good
cause to prohibit the public disclosure of the jurors’ names and
personally-identifiable information. The Court also concludes it
is equally important to Defendants’ fundamental rights to permit
the parties, their counsel, and their paralegals and/or
investigators to have access to the identities of the prospective
jurors and the ultimate trial jurors subject to this Protective
Order prohibiting disclosure of such information beyond the
parties and their litigation teams (i.e., the parties, counsel,
licensed investigators, and paralegals) .?

The Court, therefore, enters this Protective Order
absolutely prohibiting the parties and members of their
litigation teams from disclosing outside of such litigation teams

the names and personally-identifying information of potential

2 The Court notes the defendant-specific factors from
Shryock do not apply in this case and, therefore, do not form the
basis of the need for juror anonymity.

4 - REDACTED JURY MANAGEMENT ORDER AND PROTECTIVE ORDER (#978)



be excused for cause but at least one other party objects to
excusing, together with a concise explanation of the parties’
positions as to each disputed challenge.

On the first day of the Pretrial Conference on August 22,
2016, the Court will consider the parties’ recommendations and
challenges regarding the potential jurors to excuse for cause
based only on their Questionnaire responses. After the Court
rules on the parties’ requests to excuse certain prospective
jurors for cause and pursuant to the parties’ agreement, the Jury
Administrator will randomly order the remaining jurors in the
sequence they will be called to participate in live, in-court
voir dire beginning on September 7, 2016, and, if seated, the
order in which they will serve as trial jurors or alternate
jurors.? In addition, at this stage of the Pretrial Conference
the Court will discuss with the parties and, if sufficient
information is then available, settle the number and distribution
of peremptory challenges.

As soon thereafter as practical, the Court will provide the
parties with a list of prospective jurors in the sequential order
in which they will be seated for in-court voir dire. During the
live voir dire process beginning September 7, 2016, the Court

will ask questions of the prospective jurors with input from the

3 The Court and the parties have agreed if an alternate
juror must be seated as a trial juror, such alternate will be
selected by lot from the available alternate jurors.

6 - REDACTED JURY MANAGEMENT ORDER AND PROTECTIVE ORDER (#978



officers presiding over these proceedings, it is necessary to
protect jurors from the risk of similar inappropriate conduct.

Accordingly, on this record the Court concludes a partial
sequestration of the jury is necessary as specified herein to
protect jurors from external influences that could impair their
ability to be impartial and to ensure jurors’ security throughout
their service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2016.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge

9 - REDACTED JURY MANAGEMENT ORDER AND PROTECTIVE ORDER (#978)



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
Vv.

AMMON BUNDY, JON RITZHEIMER,
JOSEPH 0’ SHAUGHNESSY, RYAN
PAYNE, RYAN BUNDY, BRIAN
CAVALIER, SHAWNA COX, PETER
SANTILLI, JASON PATRICK,
DUANE LEO EHMER, DYLAN
ANDERSON, SEAN ANDERSON,
DAVID LEE FRY, JEFF WAYNE
BANTA, SANDRA LYNN ANDERSON,
KENNETH MEDENBACH, BLAINE
COOPER, WESLEY KJAR, COREY

LEQUIEU, NEIL WAMPLER, JASON

CHARLES BLOMGREN, DARRYL
WILLIAM THORN, GEOFFREY

STANEK, TRAVIS COX, ERIC LEE

FLORES, and JAKE RYAN,

Defendants.

1 - REDACTED JURY MANAGEMENT

3:16-cr-00051-BR
REDACTED JURY MANAGEMENT
ORDER AND PROTECTIVE
ORDER (#978)

UNSEALED

ORDER AND PROTECTIVE ORDER (#978)



parties. The Court will address jurors by the number that
corresponds to the sequential order in which they are seated for
in-court voir dire. No one will address or identify any
prospective juror by name, and, for the reasons already stated,
the Court directs the parties to refer to prospective jurors
during in-court voir dire by their juror seat number and not to
disclose the name of any juror or prospective juror during court
proceedings.

As the parties have agreed, the Court intends to seat 12
trial jurors and 8 alternate jurors. As a result, voir dire will
continue day-to-day until enough jurors are passed for cause to
allow the seating of 20 jurors after peremptory challenges have
been exercised.

On September 7, 2016, the Court will call 30 prospective
jurors for in-court voir dire. On each subsequent day the Court
intends to call 30 prospective jurors for each of two separate
in-court voir dire sessions in the morning and in the afternoon.
The Court directs the parties to provide the Clerk (no later than
Noon on the day before a specific group of prospective jurors is
scheduled for voir dire) a single, joint document with the juror-
specific questions that the parties request the Court to ask
during in-court voir dire (e.g., questions for prospective jurors
on the first day of voir dire are due no later than Noon on

September 6, 2016, and questions for jurors on the second day of

7 - REDACTED JURY MANAGEMENT ORDER AND PROTECTIVE ORDER (#978)



BROWN, Judge.

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte on jury-
Management issues related to the trial set to begin on
September 7, 2016. As of the date of this Order, Defendants
Ammon Bundy, Joseph O’ Shaughnessy, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, Peter
Santilli, David Lee Fry, Jeff Wayne Banta, Kenneth Medenbach, and
Neil Wampler will go to trial with voir dire starting on
September 7, 2016.
I. Juror Anonymity and Protective Order

The empaneling of an anonymous jury “is warranted only where
there is a strong reason to believe the jury needs protection or
to safeguard the integrity of the justice system, so that the
jury can perform its factfinding function.” United States v.
Shryock, 342 F.3d 948, 971 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court “may
empanel an anonymous jury ‘where (1) there is a strong reason for
concluding that it is necessary to enable the jury to perform its
factfinding function, or to ensure juror protection; and
(2) reasonable safeguards are adopted by the trial court to
minimize any risk of infringement upon the fundamental rights of
the accused.’” Id. (quoting United States v. DeLuca, 137 F.3d
24, 31 (lst Cir. 1998)) (emphasis added). Among the factors that
may warrant protecting juror information from public disclosure
is “extensive publicity that could enhance the possibility that

jurors’ names would become public and expose them to intimidation

2 - REDACTED JURY MANAGEMENT ORDER AND PROTECTIVE ORDER (#978



and harassment.’” Shryock, 342 F.3d at 971.

The record in this case reflects there has been extensive
publicity and commentary in traditional and social media of the
41-day “occupation” events that give rise to the charges on which
Defendants will be tried beginning September 7, 2016, and of the
proceedings in this matter. Such publicity and commentary
reflect strong opposing views concerning Defendants’ alleged
conduct and the reasons Defendants may assert for protesting
governmental action as well as the methods they may have chosen
for doing so. See Order (#389) and Order (#884) Denying Motion
for Change of Venue. The Court also notes there have been
several occasions during the pendency of this case when
(1) pro-Defendant demonstrators have congregated at the public
entrance in front of the Courthouse where the trial will take
place, often on days when court was in session on this matter and
(2) telephone, email, social media, and U.S. Mail messages have
been received by the Court protesting Defendants’ prosecution and
at times threatening presiding judicial officers and those
involved in the court process.+

Based on 24 years of experience as a trial judge, this Court
finds if jurors’ names and personally-identifiable information

are publicly disclosed, there is an unacceptable, continuous, and

+ The Court.does not have any information that suggests
these communications have been directed by any Defendant or are
otherwise attributable to any Defendant.

3 - REDACTED JURY MANAGEMENT ORDER AND PROTECTIVE ORDER (#978