USA v. Claus

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	CRIMINAL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 24-155
CHRISTIAN CONRAD CLAUS 	SECTION: D (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Attorney-Conducted Voir Dire and/or in the
Alternative, Motion to Include Juror Questionnaire with Jury Summons, filed by
Defendant Christian Conrad Claus.1 The Government has filed a response.2 After a
careful review of the parties’ memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the
Court DENIES the Motion.
I. 	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3
Defendant filed the present Motion on May 11, 2026, seeking permission for
counsel for each party to conduct thirty minutes of voir dire of the jury venire and
also, or in the alternative, to permit the parties to question potential jurors before
trial in the form of a questionnaire.4 Defendant argues that the Federal Rules permit
attorney-conducted 	voir 	dire 	and 	that 	Fifth 	Circuit 	precedent 	encourages 	it. 5
Furthermore, Defendant contends that the presence of pretrial publicity in the
present case “militates in favor of attorney[-]conducted voir dire.”6 Defendant then
notes that empirical data from various studies support attorney-led voir dire, arguing
1 R. Doc. 125.
2 R. Doc. 129.
3 The Factual and Procedural Background has been set forth in a previous Order and Reasons and is
incorporated here. See R. Doc. 149.
4 R. Doc. 125.
5 R. Doc. 125-1 at p. 2.
6 Id. at p. 4.
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 155 Filed 05/26/26 Page 1 of 5

2
that it reduces the potential for juror bias.7 Defendant then re-urges his motion for a
case-specific juror questionnaire to be included with the jury summons; such motion
which had previously been ruled upon by Judge Vance when she presided over this
case.8 Defendant argues that a questionnaire will save the Court time, allow for open-
ended 	questions 	without 	the 	time 	constraints 	of 	an 	in-court 	proceeding, 	and
ameliorate the issues with pre-trial publicity.9
The Government responds that it “takes no position as to the defendant’s
request” 	for 	attorney-conducted 	voir 	dire 10 	and 	that 	it 	opposes 	a 	pre-trial
questionnaire for the reasons stated in its response to Defendant’s initial motion for
a pre-trial juror questionnaire.11
In September 2025, Judge Vance, who previously presided over this matter,
denied Defendant’s 	initial 	motion 	to issue 	a 	juror questionnaire, 	finding 	that
Defendant had not justified the time, burden, and expense of administering such a
questionnaire.12
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure set forth a process for examining
prospective 	jurors. 	Under 	Rule 	24, 	the 	Court 	may 	allow 	counsel 	to 	examine
prospective jurors, or it may do so itself.13 Rule 24(a)(2) specifies that, if the Court
examines the jurors, it must permit counsel to ask any additional questions that the
7 Id. at pp. 7-8.
8 R. Docs. 22, 49.
9 R. Doc. 125-1 at pp. 8-10.
10 R. Doc. 129.
11 R. Doc. 23.
12 R. Doc. 49.
13 Fed. R. Crim. P. 24(a)(1).
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 155 Filed 05/26/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Court considers proper or submit further questions that the Court may ask if it
considers them proper.14 The Court has broad discretion in determining how best to
conduct voir dire.15 	“A district court’s failure to ask a proposed question does not
constitute an abuse of discretion if the overall voir dire examination and the
instructions given at trial adequately protect a party’s interests.”16
III. 	ANALYSIS
A. The Court exercises its discretion to conduct voir dire itself.
Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure grants the Court the option
to examine prospective jurors itself or to permit the attorneys for the parties to do so.
The Fifth Circuit has recognized that “[t]he district court has great latitude to conduct
voir dire, including the form and scope of questioning.”17 While Defendant cites Fifth
Circuit precedent that encourages attorney conducted voir dire,18 those cases are
inapposite. In United States v. Ible, the Court held that “the denial of [Defendant’s]
proposed voir dire question concerning the jurors' moral or religious beliefs about
alcohol” deprived Defendant “of the effective exercise of his peremptory challenges.”19
14 Fed. R. Crim. P. 24(a)(2).
15 United States v. Garcia-Flores, 246 F.3d 451, 458 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing United States v. Posada-
Rios, 158 F.3d 832, 873 (5th Cir. 1998)); see also Darden v. Snow, 849 F. App'x 100, 101 (5th Cir. 2021)
(citing United States v. Landrón-Class, 696 F.3d 62, 68 (5th Cir. 2012)).
16 United States v. Harper, 369 Fed.Appx. 556, 565 (5th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted) (district court
did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant the opportunity to submit to jurors his proposed
questionnaire); See United States v. Flores, 63 F.3d 1342, 1353 (5th Cir. 1995) (“[O]ur role is not to
decide what voir dire procedure is best, but to determine whether the procedure chosen by the district
court is sufficient. To do this, we ask ‘whether the procedure used . . . created a reasonable assurance
that prejudice would be discovered if present.’”) (quotation omitted) (concluding that district court did
not abuse its discretion in limiting voir dire by refusing to permit a long questionnaire to be sent to
potential jurors).
17 United States v. Pratt, 728 F.3d 463, 470 (5th Cir. 2013), abrogated on other grounds by Molina-
Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189 (2016).
18 See United States v. Ible, 630 F.2d 389 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Davis, 583 F.2d 190 (5th Cir.
1978).
19 Ible, 630 F.2d at 394.
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 155 Filed 05/26/26 Page 3 of 5

4
In Davis, the Court held that the district court “erred in not undertaking a more
thorough examination of those panel members exposed to publicity” and that “the
cursory questioning by the court was not enough” under the circumstances of that
case.20
In this case, the Court has already solicited questions from each party to pose
to the venire.21 As is the customary practice of this Court, the Court provides its
“standard” questions that it asks in either a criminal or civil matter to the parties at
least two weeks before the parties’ proposed questions are due.22 The Court provided
its standard questions to the parties in this matter on May 12, 2026. The Court then
solicits proposed voir dire questions from the parties. Once the parties file their
proposed voir dire questions, the Court reviews same, makes determinations as to
each question, incorporates appropriate proposed questions, and then provides the
parties with the final voir dire prior to trial. 	Further, after the initial voir dire has
concluded, the Court permits counsel to propose additional questions as follow-up to
be asked to the entire venire or to individual potential jurors. The Court will follow
that same process in this case, allowing the parties at least two opportunities to
propose questions to be asked during the voir dire. The Court finds that these
measures remedy any issues identified by the Fifth Circuit in its jurisprudence
regarding Court-conducted voir dire, and, for that reason, the Court denies the motion
as it relates to attorney-conducted voir dire.
20 Davis. 583 F.2d at 196.
21 See R. Doc. 82 giving the parties until May 26, 2026, to propose questions for Voir Dire.
22 Id.
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 155 Filed 05/26/26 Page 4 of 5

5
B. Defendant 	has 	not 	justified 	the 	time, 	burden, 	and 	expense 	of
administering a juror questionnaire.
The Court handles voir dire surrounding media coverage in the same manner
as Judge Vance described in her prior Order and Reasons. 23 “During voir dire,
prospective jurors exposed to media coverage will be questioned individually outside
the hearing of other prospective jurors about the nature and effect of the exposure.”24
The Court will do so in this matter. Likewise, this Court finds that its standard voir
dire practice adequately addresses any preexisting knowledge or biases that members
of the venire may have.25 The Court finds no reason to disturb the thorough prior
ruling regarding this issue. Further, and importantly, trial is scheduled for June 15,
less than one month away. Even if the Court were inclined to revisit and disagree
with the previous ruling on this matter—which it is not—time constraints alone
preclude the issuance of jury questionnaire.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion26 is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, May 26, 2026.
______________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
United States District Judge
23 R. Doc. 49.
24 Id. at p. 2.
25 See e.g., United States v. Hamdan, No. CR 19-60-WBV-KWR, 2020 WL 4544729, at *3–4 (E.D. La.
Aug. 6, 2020) (citing United States v. Claville, Crim. A. No. 07-50097-02, 2008 WL 782809, at *1 (W.D.
La. Mar. 20, 2008) (denying defendant's motion for pretrial juror questionnaire).
26 R. Doc. 125.
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 155 Filed 05/26/26 Page 5 of 5