Although these factors are neither exclusive nor dispositive, courts have recognized the need for jury protection based on a combination of factors, including: (1) the defendants’ involvement with organized crime; (2) the defendants’ participation in a group with the capacity to harm jurors; (3) the defendants’ past attempts to interfere with the judicial process or witnesses; (4) the potential that the defendants will suffer lengthy incarceration if convicted; and (5) extensive publicity that could enhance the possibility that jurors’ names would become public and expose them to intimidation and harassment. Shryock, 342 F.3d at 971 (citations omitted); see Darden, 70 F.3d 1507, 1532 (8th Cir.1995) (collecting cases applying these five factors); see also Baker, 10 F.3d at 1390 (<HOLDING>). The record reveals that all five factors were
recognizing ability of one or more joint tortfeasors to settle on behalf of themselves and another joint tortfeasor and then pursue that joint tortfeasor for its share of the settlement payment holding that a district court was entitled to accept or reject testimony on the basis of the witnesses demeanor and candor or lack thereof and contradictions in the witnesses testimony holding that the district court must make findings on the record as to the basis for its conclusion about the amount of actual loss holding that prosecutor free to comment on defendants failure to call certain witnesses or present certain testimony recognizing despite its skepticism about certain justifications for large joint trials that possible loss of testimony and more importantly risk to the lives of witnesses must be factored into the equation on a casebycase basis