contaminating those prospective jurors who had not read or heard about the case with the responses of those who had. See Coppedge v. United States, 272 F.2d 504, 507-08 (D.C.Cir.1959) (had juror admitted before his fellow jurors that he was influenced because of a newspaper article which reported that prosecutor had stated that the defendant was a vicious criminal, that witness was deathly afraid of the defendant, and that district court did not believe that witness could be protected, “the damage to the defendant would have been spread to the listening other jurors”), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 855, 82 S.Ct. 92, 7 L.Ed.2d 52 (1961). The sequestered individual voir dire of jurors “is not unusual, nor viewed with suspicion.” In re Greensboro News Co., 727 F.2d 1320, 1323 (4th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, the practice has been endorsed by the
holding that the jurors failure to remember particular facts inquired about on voir dire and the jurors misunderstanding of voir dire questions do not constitute probable prejudice holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire holding that newspapers were not entitled to a writ of mandamus challenging district court order providing for in camera voir dire of potential jurors in criminal prosecution since order was made to ensure frank and forthcoming responses and represented a proper balance between first amendment concerns of news media and sixth amendment fair trial rights of the defendants holding that access rights of the news media and of the general public are identical in scope holding no violation of substantial rights occurred during voir dire where record did not show that defendant was denied fair and impartial trial