USA v. Wanjiku

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CR-23-227-R
)
ERICK GACHUHI WANJIKU, 	)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Erick Gachuhi Wanjiku’s pro se Motion to Unseal
Transcripts [Doc. 150]. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
Following a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty on two counts of assaulting a
federal officer [Doc. 50]. Defendant filed a direct appeal to the Tenth Circuit, and both his
conviction and sentence were affirmed [Docs. 144]. He now seeks to unseal the transcript
of the voir dire proceedings of his trial for use in his postconviction relief request.
Pursuant to Judicial Conference Policy, in a criminal case, “documents containing
identifying information about jurors or potential jurors…should not be made available to
the public either at the courthouse or via electronic access.” See Policy on Privacy and
Public Access to Electronic Case Files, The Judicial Conference of the United States,
(available 	at 	https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/judiciary-policies/privacy-policy-
electronic-case-files) 	(cleaned 	up). The 	transcript 	includes 	the 	names, 	occupations,
location, and other identifying information of 30 jurors or potential jurors. Accordingly,
Case 5:23-cr-00227-R Document 151 Filed 10/15/24 Page 1 of 3

2
this is the type of document that should be sealed from the public, and Defendant’s Motion
to Unseal is thus denied.
Additionally, a liberal reading of Defendant’s Motion reveals a request for a free
copy of the voir dire transcript. Defendant has not stated the grounds for the postconviction
relief he seeks, but merely directs that he “would be unable to fully litigate his case”
without the voir dire transcript [Doc. 150].
“Indigent prisoners do not have a constitutional right of access to free transcripts
merely to search for error.” Ruark v. Gunter, 958 F.2d 318, 319 (10 th Cir. 1992). “Criminal
defendants have an absolute right to a trial transcript for direct appeals, but if they are
seeking postconviction collateral relief, they must first demonstrate a nonfrivolous claim.”
Nortonsen v. Larimer Cty. Dist. Ct., 178 Fed.Appx. 783 (10 th Cir. 2006) (citing Ruark, 958
F.2d at 319). Moreover, under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), free transcripts are available for
defendants seeking postconviction relief only where the trial judge or circuit judge certifies
that the claim is not frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f).
Defendant’s Motion does not provide the Court with the information necessary to
make 	the 	certification 	required 	by 	§ 	753(f). 	He 	presents 	neither 	the 	avenue 	for
postconviction relief he seeks, nor the necessity or utility of the transcript for his requested
relief. Accordingly, his request is denied without prejudice, and he may file a motion with
information sufficient for this Court to determine whether his claim is nonfrivolous.
Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Unseal is DENIED. Additionally, Defendant’s
request for a free copy of the transcript for postconviction relief is DENIED, though he
may file a separate motion establishing the nonfrivolous grounds for his requested relief.
Case 5:23-cr-00227-R Document 151 Filed 10/15/24 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15 th day of October, 2024.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:23-cr-00227-R Document 151 Filed 10/15/24 Page 3 of 3