Nor was the jury a "partially anonymous" jury. See State v. Samonte, 83 Hawai‘i 507, 928 P.2d 1 (1996) (trial court ordered that the first names, street addresses, and phone numbers of prospective jurors and their spouses be redacted from juror-information cards, and thereby empaneled a "partially anonymous jury."). Because Lafoga's and Ines' counsel and the prosecution knew the full names of the prospective jurors, the jury was not a completely or partially anonymous jury.

Protecting the presumption of innocence was a signature issue in State v. Samonte, 83 Hawaii 507, 928 P.2d 1 (1996), where the trial court empaneled a partially anonymous jury in response to demonstrated jury tampering. Even under such circumstances, the Samonte court recognized that an anonymous jury jeopardizes a defendant's "constitutional right to a presumption of innocence" by inferring the defendant is guilty or dangerous.

Lafoga relies on federal and state "anonymous jury" cases of United States v. Ross, id., and State v. Samonte, 83 Hawai'i 507, 928 P.2d 1 (1996), to support his argument that referring to the jurors by number and not by name was prejudicial. In Ross, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the empaneling of an anonymous jury and adopted the following principles from the Second Circuit: "In general, the court should not order the empaneling of an anonymous jury without (a) concluding that there is strong reason to believe the jury needs protection, and (b) taking reasonable precautions to minimize any prejudicial effects on the defendant and to ensure that his fundamental rights are protected."

Here, however, the jurors' names and information were not withheld fully from the parties, because the State and defense counsels had all the information. Lafoga relies on federal and state "anonymous jury" cases of United States v. Ross, id., and State v. Samonte, 83 Hawai‘i 507, 928 P.2d 1 (1996), to support his argument that referring to the jurors by number and not by name was prejudicial. In Ross, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the empaneling of an anonymous jury and adopted the following principles from the Second Circuit: "In general, the court should not order the empaneling of an anonymous jury without (a) concluding that there is strong reason to believe the jury needs protection, and (b) taking reasonable precautions to minimize any prejudicial effects on the defendant and to ensure that his fundamental rights are protected."

The legislature did not state its purpose for requiring juror qualification forms to be made available to litigants under § HRS 612-17(c). Cf. State v. Samonte, 83 Haw. 507, 518, 928 P.2d 1, 12 (1996) (discussing HRS § 612-18(c)). The obvious purpose, however, is to facilitate the jury selection process and voir dire by giving the parties access to general information regarding prospective jurors.

Nor was the jury a "partially anonymous" jury. See State v. Samonte, 83 Hawai'i 507, 928 P.2d 1 (1996) (trial court ordered that the first names, street addresses, and phone numbers of prospective jurors and their spouses be redacted from juror-information cards, and thereby empaneled a "partially anonymous jury."). Because Lafoga's and Ines' counsel and the prosecution knew the full names of the prospective jurors, the jury was not a completely or partially anonymous jury.

IV. In State v. Samonte, 83 Haw. 507, 928 P.2d 1 (1996), this court set forth a detailed analysis as to when statutory requirements are mandatory and when they are merely directory. In Samonte, HRS § 612-18(c) (1993) was violated because the trial court did not provide the "names of prospective jurors to be summoned to sit as a jury and the contents of juror qualification forms[,]" even though the statute explicitly stated that this information "shall" be provided to the litigants involved.

¶ 42 We would not, however, liberally exercise our authority to intercede to undo a trial judge's decision to impanel an anonymous jury because that decision is highly fact intensive and well within the scope of a trial judge's discretionary powers. See State v. Samonte, 83 Hawai'i 507, 928 P.2d 1, 17 (1996). It is a decision that requires a trial judge to draw on the training and temperament that form the very core of judging and is therefore a decision that is entitled to deferential treatment by a reviewing court.

The State conceded that with respect to the time between arraignment and waiver demand "it is the practice of district court to charge that time to the state." However, the State argued that based on this court's opinions in State v. Senteno, 69 Haw. 363, 742 P.2d 369 (1987), and State v. Samonte, 83 Hawai'i 507, 928 P.2d 1 (1996), the district court's practice was incorrect. After the parties finished their arguments, the circuit court orally dismissed the case with prejudice and offered the following explanation:

When viewed alongside the nature of the evidence presented at trial and the statements of some of the jurors during voir dire, Juror Nine's statements were insurmountably prejudicial. This factor distinguishes this case from State v. Samonte, 83 Hawai‘i 507, 527, 928 P.2d 1, 21 (1996), where this court held that an allegedly tainted jury could nonetheless be impartial. There, two jurors received anonymous letters at their homes during deliberations, urging them to find the defendant guilty and informing them that the defendant had previously been in prison.