1/ Jury Sequestration in the Manafort trial: Many have suggested the jury in the Manafort case should have been "sequestered". Not necessarily so, though...
2/ The decision whether to sequester the jury lies within the sound discretion of the district court. Failure to sequester a jury, standing alone, could rarely, if ever, constitute "reversible" error.
3/ In other words, sometimes "error" is deemed acceptable, if, e.g., it's harmless. A convicted defendant would have a steep hill to climb if he claims that a judge's failure to sequester was such error that his conviction should be vacated.
4/ Sequestration is an extreme measure, one of the most burdensome tools of the many available to assure a fair trial. Unless the defendant can show some fundamental unfairness attributable to the failure to sequester, it's a long shot.
5/ If defendant moved for sequestration, an appellate court will review the motion to sequester the jury due to extensive media coverage for an "abuse of discretion".
6/ Reversal is warranted in rare circumstances, e.g., the setting of the trial was inherently prejudicial, or that the jury selection process gives rise to an inference of actual prejudice.
7/ Extensive media coverage alone makes a trial setting inherently prejudicial only when it so pervades the trial atmosphere that the trial atmosphere is utterly corrupted by press coverage. In other words, it becomes a "media circus".
8/ So, the failure to sequester was (just playing the odds) probably not reversible error. However, there are reports that jurors were "mingling" with the general public in the cafeteria or halls. Not sure if that's accurate, but that's a real concern.
