USA v. EdwardsRESPONSE/REPLYM.D.N.C.December 22, 2011IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOHNNY REID EDWARDS ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:11-CR-161-1 GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JOHN EDWARDS’ MOTION FOR PROCEDURES IN JURY SELECTION The United States of America, by and through the undersigned attorneys, respectfully files its position on the jury selection procedures requested by defendant John Edwards in his Motion for Procedures in Jury Selection (Dkt. No. 129). I. Fresh Venire The Government joins in Edwards’ request for use of a fresh venire. II. Excused Absences to be Granted Only by the Court The Government takes no position on Edwards’ request on this issue. III. Pre-Voir Dire Written Questionnaire The Government joins in Edwards’ request for use of a written questionnaire. IV. Individual/Small Group Follow Up Voir Dire The Government agrees that after analyzing the questionnaires, the parties should make an initial effort to agree on prospective jurors who, subject to the Court’s approval, should be stricken for cause. The Government also agrees that for follow-up questions on potentially problematic areas, some effort should be made to prevent jurors’ Case 1:11-cr-00161-CCE Document 131 Filed 12/22/11 Page 1 of 4 answers from infecting the remainder of the venire, and individual or small group follow- up by the Court is an appropriate procedure for that purpose. As for permitting the attorneys for the parties to participate in voir dire, the Government is satisfied with the procedures established under Local Criminal Rule 24.1(a). V. Alternate Jurors The Government joins in Edwards’ request that the alternate jurors not be told that they are alternates. VI. Additional and Alternating Peremptory Strikes The Government opposes Edwards’ request for additional peremptory strikes. The case he cites in support of his request, United States v. Barnett, 644 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 2011), was a capital murder case, for which twenty strikes per side are prescribed by rule. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 24(b)(1). There is no reason to deviate in this case from the standard number of strikes in non-capital felony cases. The Government takes no position on Edwards’ request that the Court use alternating strikes as opposed to simultaneous strikes. -2- Case 1:11-cr-00161-CCE Document 131 Filed 12/22/11 Page 2 of 4 Dated: December 22, 2011 Respectfully submitted, JOHN STUART BRUCE Attorney for the United States Acting under authority conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515 By: /s/ Robert J. Higdon, Jr. Robert J. Higdon, Jr. Brian S. Meyers Special Attorneys U.S. Attorney’s Office 310 New Bern Ave., Suite 800 Raleigh, NC 27601-1461 Tel: (919) 856-4103 Fax: (919) 856-4887 bobby.higdon@usdoj.gov State Bar No. 17229 JACK SMITH Chief, Public Integrity Section Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice By: /s/ David V. Harbach, II David V. Harbach, II Jeffrey E. Tsai Trial Attorneys Public Integrity Section Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice 1400 New York Ave., N.W., Ste. 12100 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 514-1412 Fax: (202) 514-3003 david.harbach@usdoj.gov -3- Case 1:11-cr-00161-CCE Document 131 Filed 12/22/11 Page 3 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on December 22, 2011, I filed the foregoing document on the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will transmit a copy to the following counsel of record in this case: James P. Cooney III Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC One Wells Fargo Center 301 South College Street, Suite 3500 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-6037 Abbe David Lowell Chadbourne & Parke LLP 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 /s/ David V. Harbach, II Trial Attorney Public Integrity Section Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice 1400 New York Ave., N.W., Ste. 12100 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 514-1412 Fax: (202) 514-3003 david.harbach@usdoj.gov -4- Case 1:11-cr-00161-CCE Document 131 Filed 12/22/11 Page 4 of 4
