their questionnaires, the District Court instructed them that [i]t is a common practice followed in many cases in the Federal court to keep the names and the identities of the jurors in confidence. This is [in] no way unusual. It is a procedure being followed in this case to protect your privacy even from the Court. United States v. Edmond, Crim. No. 89-0162, slip op. at 2 (D.D.C. Sept. 5, 1989) (Preliminary Statement To Be Read To Jury Venire) (“Preliminary Instruction”), reprinted in J.A. I 259. By instructing jurors that the use of an anonymous jury was routine, the District Court avoided the possibility that jurors would view the procedure as an extraordinary precaution signaling a threat from the defendants and, inferentially, the defendants’ guilt. See Tutino, 883 F.2d at 1133 (<HOLDING>). In addition, the District Court immediately
holding that in a criminal trial the trial court must correct or amend an improper instruction if the proper instruction is necessary for the jury to understand the case holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given holding that failure to consider an improper jury instruction would constitute a miscarriage of justice holding that lay opinion testimony is not admissible when the jury can readily draw the necessary inferences and conclusions without the aid of the opinion holding that identical instruction was sufficient to ensure that the jury would not draw improper conclusions from the preservation of their anonymity