Shapiro's claimed right to inspect juror information derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1867(f), which grants a litigant access to juror information in order to prepare a motion directed at the procedures used to empanel juries. Section 1867(a) provides that in a criminal case such motion must be made either before the voir dire begins or "within seven days after the defendant discovered or could have discovered, by the exercise of diligence, the grounds therefor, whichever is earlier . . . ." "This timeliness requirement was provided to prevent dilatoriness and to ensure the rapid disposition of claims that are spurious." United States v. Bearden, 659 F.2d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 1981)(citing H.R.Rep. No. 1076, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968), reprinted in 1968 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News. 1792, 1805).
The Supreme Court made it clear in Test v. United States, 420 U.S. 28, 42 L. Ed. 2d 786, 95 S. Ct. 749 (1975), that a litigant has "essentially an unqualified right to inspect jury lists . . . in order to aid . . . in the 'preparation' of motions challenging jury-selection procedures." Id. at 30 (emphasis in original). Shapiro cited this authority in support of his request, and the Court relied upon it in granting the request. However, in light of Shapiro's well documented history of behavioral problems, see, e.g., Court Exhibit "1" (United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, Competency to Stand Trial Evaluation for Robert Shapiro, dated August 27, 1997), the Court clearly acted within the exercise of its discretion in determining, for security reasons, that the information should not be turned over to Shapiro, but to Shapiro's attorney Dunn. See United States v. Beaty, 465 F.2d 1376, 1381-1382 (9th Cir. 1972) ("The court was free to fashion how the inspection should be made and could have provided that appellant's attorney or his investigator make the inspection if the court believed and found that appellant presented a security problem."); see also United States v. Davenport, 824 F.2d 1511, 1515 (7th Cir. 1987) (holding that certain information need not be disclosed to defendants generally because "there would exist the possibility of substantial abuse of the information the forms contain, which could have serious consequences for individual jurors and the system.").
To the extent that Shapiro demands that he be provided with the information personally, the Court adheres to its earlier decision that, for security reasons, Shapiro will not be permitted to review the information and that Dunn, Shapiro's attorney in this case, must undertake the examination on Shapiro's behalf.
The Court now turns to Shapiro's allegations in a February 4, 1998 "Memorandum" to the Court that Dunn, who was appointed and not retained to serve as Shapiro's attorney, has demanded payment from Shapiro directly before he will review the jury information. The Court has no independent basis to credit this contention, and in view of the history of Shapiro's indiscriminate, abusive, and vituperative conduct toward Dunn, and Dunn's credible representation under difficult circumstances, this naked allegation is presumptively suspect. Nonetheless, the Court hereby directs Dunn forthwith to make the requisite review and appropriately counsel Shapiro in respect to his findings as part of his ongoing CJA obligations.
In light of the Act's concern with timeliness, the Court is unwilling to allow this issue to remain unresolved for an indeterminate period of time. Therefore, the Court hereby orders that Dunn complete his inspection of the jury information by Friday, April 10, 1998. By the express terms of § 1867(a), any motion brought by Shapiro challenging the jury procedures in this district must be filed with the Court and served on the United States Attorney's office within seven days of the completion of that examination, or by Friday, April 17, 1998, whichever comes earlier. The Court determines that this deadline balances Shapiro's right to obtain the information and to challenge the jury selection process, if warranted, against the Act's clear intent that such challenges be brought promptly. This deadline also seeks to minimize the potential burdens that the litigation of this issue may place upon the Clerk's Office.
For the foregoing reasons, Dunn is directed to examine those jury records specified by the Court at its December 22, 1997 session, and to consult with Shapiro regarding the basis for any such motion, on or before April 10, 1998. Any motion challenging jury selection procedures in this district must be filed within seven days of the completion of such examination, or by April 17, 1998, whichever is earlier.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 26, 1998
United States District Judge