The Connecticut Supreme Court will not stop the state’s first anonymous jury trial from going ahead. While the court granted review of a petition brought by J. Patten Brown, lawyer for Joseph Stokes, seeking to modify a court order that limits the questions they can ask of jurors, it denied relief without prejudice, meaning the same issues can later be raised on appeal following the trial outcome and that the anonymous jury will go ahead.
Stokes is on trial for the 2019 murder of Aaron Ormsby for the second time after his first trial in 2024 ended in a mistrial. The second trial was delayed over concerns that Stokes had engaged in jury tampering during the first trial, allegedly passing the names of jury members to his father, who then planned to use social media to learn personal information and threaten them.
Stokes was charged with attempted jury tampering in 2024 and has pled not guilty. While that charge has yet to be proven, it led Justice Maria del Pilar Gonzalez to grant an order filed by the state seeking to allow a jury in the second trial to be empanelled anonymously.
Gonzalez’ May 26 order required that the names, dates of birth, employers, and names of spouses’ employers be redacted from jurors’ questionnaires and that lawyers and all court personnel assisting lawyers for the prosecution and defense, other than the clerk, receive redacted versions of juror lists and questionnaires. Lawyers for Stokes’ defense also can’t ask questions that would reveal identifying information about the jurors.
Brown then filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court, asking for an emergency review of the order and arguing it infringes on the voir dire process, the process by which potential jurors in a trial are questioned, and threatens the separation of legal and judicial powers under the state constitution. State officials objected to the appeal on the grounds that the trial court had properly determined an anonymous jury was necessary.
At the same time, Brown filed a public interest appeal with the Supreme Court, which applies to cases that raise significant public interest or are likely to recur again in the future.
The Supreme Court granted the emergency appeal and heard oral arguments on June 9.
In his opening, Brown discussed the challenges he says Stokes’ defense team has faced as the jury selection process for the new trial has progressed, including that he and others supporting him have been unable to search social media for information about jurors, which the state has been able to do and which is a fairly standard practice for lawyers.
Brown was questioned by Justice Steven D. Ecker about whether he had raised this issue and asked for the order to be modified. Brown said he had not. Brown also added that the order had been modified to prohibit the defense from asking questions about where potential jurors went to school or what activities they participated in after the state was able to identify the names of jurors based on those questions, leading to those potential jurors being dismissed.
During oral arguments, justices questioned both sides about the appropriate time in the legal process to raise the appeal. Describing the appeals as a “dynamic situation,” Justice Andrew J. McDonald asked Brown if the appeal would be better presented as an appellate issue once there was a complete factual record of how the trial unfolded.
Brown said he did not agree. He was also asked by Ecker for specific relief he was seeking from the court, such as whether they should order that the defense be able to see the names and addresses of potential jurors.
Brown said that he would request that a separate pending public interest appeal be granted, and that failing that, the issue be sent back to the trial court with the direction that the defense be allowed to see jury information.
Brown also raised the issue of the jury tampering claims, which are rooted in a claim made by another individual who was incarcerated with Stokes, stating that there should be an evidentiary threshold to be met before the empanelling of the anonymous jury could move forward.
Justice William H. Bright, Jr. also raised a concern that, if Brown’s request was granted, it had the potential to create a standard that disrupted civil litigation, where courts frequently enter protective orders in civil disputes, and would empower parties to bring an immediate motion for review if they were unhappy with a protective order.
The justices also questioned Timothy Costello, who represented the state, about the state’s argument that the appeal should be dismissed and brought after the trial had concluded. Ecker asked Costello why the state would want to avoid the court’s review if it’s available.
Costello said it was best not to address the issue now because it raised questions about what’s appropriate for the courts to review via petition for issues of pretrial selection, essentially stating that the state was worried about how a ruling could affect other cases.
Costello was also questioned about the state’s burden in proving an anonymous jury was necessary. McDonald asked about the basis for the trial court’s finding when the state didn’t call any witnesses and the criminal jury tampering charge was still pending. Costello replied that the claims were supported by evidence that had been submitted and to which Stokes did not object.
McDonald also asked Costello why the state had waited a year and a half before filing the motion seeking the anonymous jury, calling the situation a “crisis made by the state’s dilatory filing of the motion.” Costello disagreed with that characterization and said the record was silent and he wasn’t aware what went into scheduling.
Costello was also asked if the state would object if the order was modified to allow investigators for the defense team to see juror information in order to conduct research. Costello said he was, though the state might ask the court to establish guidelines around that modification.
After a recess, Chief Justice Raheem L. Mullins asked both sides to confirm that jury selection in the trial had been completed on June 5 and that the trial was set to begin on June 15. Mullins then announced that the court was prepared to rule on the petition and that while it would grant review, it would deny relief without prejudice to any issues raised on appeal. Mullins also announced the court was separately denying review of the pending public interest appeal.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
