## Facts

- Federal prosecutors charged several defendants with terrorism-related offenses, including conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and document-fraud crimes.
- The prosecution arose in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks and received intense local and national media attention.
- Investigators found defendants in a Detroit apartment with allegedly fraudulent passports, visas, and identification documents, plus materials viewed as suggestive of possible hostile plans.
- Due to safety and interference concerns, the U.S. Marshal recommended an anonymous jury.
- Prospective jurors completed a detailed 103-question written questionnaire addressing personal background, exposure to publicity, and views potentially bearing on bias (including attitudes about terrorism, Islam, and Arabs or Muslims).
- The court determined that individual, sequestered questioning would be needed to address sensitive topics and evaluate impartiality.
- Defendants moved to close individual voir dire to the public and press, asserting open questioning would chill candor and risk tainting the venire.
- Two media organizations intervened, opposing closure and asserting a constitutional right of access to voir dire.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment right of public access to criminal proceedings permits closing individual voir dire in a highly publicized terrorism prosecution to protect defendants’ fair-trial and impartial-jury rights.
2. Whether the requested closure was narrowly limited, after considering reasonable alternatives, and supported by specific findings.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion to close individual voir dire to the public and press.
- The court denied the media intervenors’ motions opposing closure.
- The court found defendants’ fair-trial and impartial-jury rights constituted an overriding interest likely to be prejudiced by open individual questioning.
- The court held the closure was limited to individual voir dire addressing sensitive matters, while other proceedings remained open.
- The court concluded no less restrictive alternative would adequately protect juror candor and prevent taint of the remaining venire.

## Legal Principles

- The press and public have a qualified First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings, including jury selection.
- A courtroom may be closed only if:
  - an overriding interest is likely to be prejudiced absent closure;
  - the closure is no broader than necessary;
  - the court considers reasonable alternatives; and
  - the court makes specific findings supporting closure.
- Protecting a defendant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury can justify limiting access when publicity and the nature of questioning threaten juror candor and the integrity of jury selection.
- Alternatives such as later transcript redaction, juror instructions to avoid media, or anonymity alone may be insufficient where real-time exposure and fear of public identification would still deter truthful answers.

## Conclusion

The court ordered closure of individual voir dire because the combination of intense publicity and the sensitive inquiry needed to detect bias created a substantial risk to juror candor and an impartial jury; the limited closure satisfied the constitutional requirements governing restrictions on access to jury selection.


United States v. Koubriti, 252 F. Supp. 2d 424 (E.D. Mich. 2003)