Judge Joanna Seybert
Defendant’s Sept. 18, 2013, “Designation of Record on Appeal” request—renewed on Dec. 2—sought mandatory settlement and approval of statements as to jury selection in his two trials (Tarantino I and Tarantino II). He claimed that in both trials, magistrate judges conducted off-the-record voir dire without his presence or waiving his presence contrary to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43. The court denied defendant’s request to supplement the record as unsupported by existing records or the recollection of the judges, court personnel or other individuals present at trial. Recalling jury selection procedures exercised in Tarantino I on March 22 and 23, 2011, the court observed that voir dire continued, in defendant’s presence, on March 28 after four selected indicated that they could not sit as jurors. Over the 100 pages of voir dire in Tarantino I, the court used similar essential questions which were contained in a questionnaire, without objection by the government or defendant. Jury selection in Tarantino II was done entirely by the same magistrate judge, on the record. In April 2012 counsel for the government and defendant submitted a “for cause” list. A random list of potential jurors was subsequently generated.
