Full opinion text
PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of six defendants convicted of federal crimes for their role in the dramatic and tragic events at Mount Carmel outside Waco, Texas during the early months of 1993. A firelight erupted when federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms attempted to execute a search and arrest warrant on February 28, 1993. Four agents and three residents of the compound lost their lives. Each defendant now challenges his conviction and sentence. I. The Branch Davidians are a 65-year-old sect originally affiliated with the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Their faith urges a life of Bible study with emphasis on an imminent, apocalyptic confrontation between the Davidians and the “beast”. The group’s leader, Vernon Howell, instructed members to arm themselves in preparation for the final battle. Howell changed his name to David Koresh in 1990 and preached that “if you can’t kill for God, you can’t die for God.” He told his followers that the “beast” included the U.S. Government and, specifically, the ATF. Koresh and other Davidians stockpiled weapons and ammunition. They fortified the compound called Mount Carmel, budding a two-foot high concrete barrier and an underground bunker. Koresh used “Bible studies” to instruct the residents in the use of firearms. In short, the Davidians turned Mount Carmel into a small fortress. The ATF discovered that the Davidians had amassed weapons, including fully automatic machineguns and hand grenades. On February 25, 1998, ATF agents obtained an arrest warrant for Koresh and a search warrant for the Mount Carmel compound. The ATF decided to execute the search and arrest warrant on February 28, 1993, but, as it was to learn, the element of surprise had been lost. Around 8:00 A.M., an undercover ATF agent, Roberto Rodriguez, visited the Davidian compound and spoke with Koresh. During the conversation, Ko-resh took a phone call. When he returned, a visibly shaken Koresh told Rodriguez, “Robert, neither the AFT or National Guard will ever get me. They got me once, they’ll never get me again.” Koresh then walked over to the windows and looked toward the farmhouse used by the undercover ATF agents. He turned to Rodriguez and said, “They’re coming, Robert. The time has come.” Rodriguez left the compound around 9:00 A.M. and advised the ATF that Koresh had learned of the raid at least forty-five minutes earlier. The ATF decided to proceed with the arrest and search warrants. When the ATF’s decision to continue was made, approximately 115 men, women, and children, ranging in age from 6 months to 70 years, resided at Mount Carmel. The ATF plan called for ATF agents, who were transported to the compound in two cattle trailers, to quickly unload and encircle the compound, while National Guard helicopters conducted a diversionary raid on the rear of the Mount Carmel compound. The plan quickly went awry. The helicopters did not arrive until after the ATF agents had begun unloading from the cattle trailers. As the agents unloaded, gunfire erupted from the compound. The agents returned fire. In the ensuing gunbattle, four agents and three Davidians were killed. Twenty-two ATF agents and four Davidians were wounded. The FBI then surrounded the compound, and, for 51 days, law enforcement and the Davidians were at a stand-off. During the stand-off, approximately 30 Davidians left the compound and were taken into custody. On April 19, FBI agents attempted to end the stand-off by flooding the compound with gas, but the Davidians did not leave. Around noon, the Davidians set the compound on fire. Seventy-five of the remaining 84 occupants perished in the blaze. On August 3,1993, a grand jury returned a superseding 10-count indictment against twelve of the surviving Davidians. The counts relevant to this appeal are: Count 1: From on or before February 19, 1992, to April 19, 1993, conspiracy to murder federal officers and employees engaged in the performance of their official duties in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1117. Count 2: On or about February 28, 1993, aiding and abetting the murder of four agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (ATF) while said agents were engaged in the performance of their official duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111(a), 1114 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Count 3: On or about February 28, 1993, using or carrying of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, to wit, Count 1, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Count 7: On or about April 19,1993, knowing and unlawful possession of a firearm, namely an explosive grenade, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Count 9: From on or about February 19, 1992 to February 1993, a conspiracy to unlawfully manufacture and possess ma-ehineguns in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Count 10: In February 1992 to February 19, 1993, aiding and abetting in the unlawful possession, of machineguns in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(o). The Government dismissed the charges against one of the twelve Davidians, Kathryn Schroeder, pursuant to a plea bargain. After a jury trial lasting nearly two months, the jury acquitted four of the Davidians on all counts on which they were charged. The jury also acquitted all eleven of the Davidians on Count 1, which alleged a conspiracy to murder federal agents. However, the jury found seven of the Davidians, Renos Avraam, Brad Branch, Jaime Castillo, Graeme Crad-dock, Livingstone Fagan, Ruth Riddle, and Kevin Whiteeliff, guilty on Count 3 for using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. The jury acquitted all eleven of the defendants on Count 2 for aiding and abetting the murder of federal agents but convicted Avraam, Branch, Castillo, Fagan, and Whiteeliff on the lesser-ineluded offense of aiding and abetting the voluntary manslaughter of federal agents. Finally, the jury convicted Craddock on Count 7 for unlawful possession of a hand grenade and convicted Paul Fatta on Counts 9 and 10 for conspiring to manufacture and possess maehineguns and for aiding and abetting the unlawful possession of maehineguns, respectively. The district court sentenced the defendants to prison terms ranging from 15 to 40 years, along with fines and restitution. Six of the eight Davidians are now before us, appealing both their convictions and sentences. They have raised a host of contentions. We first address the constitutionality of Fatta’s firearms convictions. We then turn to the arguments concerning the jury instructions and the district court’s conduct of the trial. We then address the sufficiency of the evidence. Finally, we review the sentences imposed by the district court. II. The jury convicted Fatta of conspiring to unlawfully manufacture and possess maehineguns (Count 9) and aiding and abetting the unlawful possession of maehineguns (Count 10), both in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). On the eve of trial, Fatta moved to dismiss the indictment on both counts. He argued that § 922(o) exceeded Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. The district court disagreed, noting that several other circuits had upheld the constitutionality of § 922(o). See United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 997, 113 S.Ct. 1614, 123 L.Ed.2d 174 (1993); United States v. Evans, 928 F.2d 858 (9th Cir.1991). We review de novo the district court’s ruling. 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) prohibits, subject to two, narrow exceptions not relevant here, any person from transferring or possessing a machinegun. There is no requirement that the machinegun have been in interstate commerce. Subsequent to the district court’s ruling, we held in United States v. Kirk, 70 F.3d 791 (5th Cir.1995), that § 922(o) did not exceed Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause. That panel decision has been vacated, and the case is currently pending before the en banc court. 78 F.3d 160 (5th Cir.1996). The en banc court’s resolution of this issue will govern the ultimate validity of Fatta’s convictions on Counts 9 and 10. Under pre-Kirk caselaw now binding this panel, we must reject this contention. We will, however, hold the mandate pending decision in Kirk. III. The district court instructed the jury that to convict the defendants of murder under Count 2, it had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that “the Defendant under consideration did not act in self-defense or defense of another.” The court explained self-defense and the defense of another, and then turned to the lesser-ineluded offense of voluntary manslaughter. Avraam, Branch, Castillo, and Whiteeliff argue that self-defense is also a defense to voluntary manslaughter. The Davidians requested an instruction to that effect and objected at the charge conference to its omission. A. We review the district court’s refusal to give the proposed instruction for abuse of discretion. United States v. Correa-Ventura, 6 F.3d 1070, 1076 (5th Cir. 1993). “As a general proposition a defendant is entitled to an instruction as to any recognized defense for which there exists evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in his favor,” Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63, 108 S.Ct. 883, 886, 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988), and we presume an abuse of discretion “where the district court ‘refuse[s] a charge on a defense theory for which there is an evidentiary foundation and which, if believed by the jury, would be legally sufficient to render the accused innocent.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Rubio, 834 F.2d 442, 446 (5th Cir.1987)). The court may, however, refuse to give a requested instructor that lacks sufficient foundation in the evidence. United States v. Tannehill, 49 F.3d 1049, 1057 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 167, 133 L.Ed.2d 109 (1995). We review the record cognizant that the “merest scintilla of evidence” in the defendant’s favor does not warrant a jury instruction regarding an affirmative defense for which the defendant bears the initial burden of production. United States v. Jackson, 726 F.2d 1466, 1468 (9th Cir.1984). Under Mathews, there must be “evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in [the defendant’s] favor.” We have insisted that the evidence be sufficient to raise a factual question for a reasonable jury. See United States v. Lucien, 61 F.3d 366, 374-77 (5th Cir.1995); United States v. Jones, 839 F.2d 1041, 1053 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1024, 108 S.Ct. 1999, 100 L.Ed.2d 230 (1988). Our decisions leave no doubt that while a particular piece of evidence standing alone may support inferences that warrant an instruction, those inferences may evaporate after reviewing the entire record. For example, in United States v. Ivey, 949 F.2d 759, 768-69 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 819, 113 S.Ct. 64, 121 L.Ed.2d 32 (1992), we affirmed the district court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the defense of entrapment. We explained that evidence supporting entrapment was overwhelmed by other evidence in the record and there was no need to instruct the jury regarding it. Id.; see also United States v. Pruneda-Gonzalez, 953 F.2d 190, 197 (5th Cir.) (holding evidence of entrapment was insufficient to shift burden of persuasion to government), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 978, 112 S.Ct. 2952, 119 L.Ed.2d 575 (1992); United States v. Stanley, 765 F.2d 1224, 1234-35 (5th Cir.1985) (same). The requirement that the evidence be sufficient to persuade a reasonable juror is not limited solely to the defense of entrapment but extends to all defenses for which the defendant bears the initial burden of production. See United States v. Liu, 960 F.2d 449, 454 (5th Cir.) (duress), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 957, 113 S.Ct. 418, 121 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992). A district court cannot refuse to give an instruction for which there is sufficient evidence in the record for a reasonable juror to harbor a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense, but the district court is not required “to put the case to the jury on a basis that ‘essentially indulges and even encourages speculations.’” United States v. Collins, 690 F.2d 431 (5th Cir.1982) (affirming refusal to give lesser-included offense instruction), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1046, 103 S.Ct. 1447, 75 L.Ed.2d 801 (1983). The dissent measures the evidence in the record by an incorrect standard, misled by our statements in Perez v. United States, 297 F.2d 12 (5th Cir.1961), and Strauss v. United States, 376 F.2d 416 (5th Cir.1967), that the district court must instruct the jury on a defense for which there is “any foundation in the evidence.” The measure of “any evidence” never commanded allegiance. See United States v. Andrew, 666 F.2d 915, 922-24 & nn. 10, 11 (5th Cir.1982) (quorum) (noting intracircuit split on the issue). To the contrary, panels of this court were chary of literally applying Perez and Strauss. See United States v. Fischel, 686 F.2d 1082, 1086 n. 2 (5th Cir.1982) (refusing to resolve split); United States v. Leon, 679 F.2d 534, 539 n. 5 (5th Cir.1982) (same). If the matter rested there, the dissent would, perhaps, be justified in exploiting this dissonance. Mathews, however, resolved the matter. Indeed, in United States v. Stowell, 953 F.2d 188 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 908, 112 S.Ct. 1269, 117 L.Ed.2d 497 (1992), and cert. denied, 506 U.S. 902, 113 S.Ct. 292, 121 L.Ed.2d 217 (1992), we explained: Although we have on several occasions before and after Mathews observed that the court must charge the jury on a defense theory when there is any evidence to support it, this language is admittedly incomplete. Its shorthand implies that a mere scintilla of evidence in support of a defense theory requires the giving of an instruction on that theory at the defendant’s request. Of course, any evidence in support of a defensive theory must be sufficient for a reasonable jury to rule in favor of the defendant on that theory. This is what we meant when we stated in this ease that a court may decide as a matter of law that the evidence ... fails to raise a factual question for the jury. Id. at 189 (citations omitted). Similarly, Judge Posner in United States v. Perez, 86 F.3d 735, 736 (7th Cir.1996), interpreted Mathews as rejecting the notion that “any evidence,” no matter how weak or insufficient, entitled the defendant to an instruction on an affirmative defense. Not surprisingly, all but one of the decisions reiterating the “any evidence” standard of Perez and Strauss came prior to Mathews. And United States v. Kim, 884 F.2d 189, 193 (5th Cir.1989), the only decision in this circuit to cite either Perez or Strauss after Mathews, did not involve the question whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant the requested jury instruction. The dissent relies upon dicta from the century-old decision of Stevenson v. United States, 162 U.S. 313, 16 S.Ct. 839, 40 L.Ed. 980 (1896), but that reliance is mistaken. Stevenson, which addressed the evidence needed to trigger a jury instruction regarding a lesser-included offense, did not embrace the proposition that even a scintilla of evidence warrants a jury instruction. To the contrary, Stevenson expressly noted that “[tjhere might be cases where the uncontra-dicted evidence was so clear and overwhelming” to justify refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense. Id. at 321, 16 S.Ct. at 842. Indeed, the Court in Stevenson referred with approval to its earlier decision in Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 15 S.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed. 343 (1895), in which the Court explained that even if there is “some evidence bearing upon a particular issue in a cause, but it is so meagre as not, in law, to justify a verdict in favor of the party producing it, the court is in the line of duty when it so declares to the jury.” Id. at 99-100, 15 S.Ct. at 292; see also Andersen v. United States, 170 U.S. 481, 496-98 n. 1, 510-11, 18 S.Ct. 689, 692 n. 1, 696-97, 42 L.Ed. 1116 (1898) (holding that evidence did not warrant lesser-included offense instruction, despite the fact that the defendant testified that he killed the deceased out of fear for his life). Decisions rendered in the century since Stevenson dispelled any doubt regarding that case’s meaning and the quantum of evidence obliging the court to instruct the jury. Despite any uncertainty in our decisions before it, Mathews broke no new ground. The Supreme Court had earlier rejected the argument that any evidence, even a scintilla, warranted a jury instruction on an affirmative defense or lesser-included offense. In Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 208, 93 S.Ct. 1993, 1995, 36 L.Ed.2d 844 (1973), the Court explained that a court must instruct a jury on a lesser-included offense only “if the evidence would permit a jury rationally to find him guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater.” See also Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 716 n. 8, 109 S.Ct. 1443, 1451 n. 8, 103 L.Ed.2d 734 (1989) (reiterating Keeble standard); Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 635, 100 S.Ct. 2382, 2388, 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980) (same); Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 231 & n. 18, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 2338 & n. 18, 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977) (Powell, J., dissenting) (noting that an issue such as self-defense will not be submitted to the jury where the defendant’s evidence does not justify a reasonable doubt regarding the issue). Mathews followed this consistent line. In short, it is not enough that an item of evidence viewed alone and unweighed against all the evidence supports an inference that a defendant acted in self defense. See United States v. Harrison, 55 F.3d 163, 167 (5th Cir.) (holding that evidence if viewed in isolation warranted lesser-included offense instruction but not if viewed in context of the entire record), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 324, 133 L.Ed.2d 225 (1995). The critical distinction is that a single item of evidence can be overwhelmed by other evidence in the record. Id. The distinction is neither academic nor prissy; it defines the character of appellate review of the criminal trial, reflecting our effort to curb any tendency of criminal appeals to become a lawyer’s sporting search for “error.” The jury plays a central role at trial, but the threshold to the jury room has never been so low as the dissent would have it. This is not word play; there is a vast difference in concept between the requirement of sufficient evidence and a scintilla. There is an equally large difference in their application. This difference is central to the dissent, leading it to rely upon snapshots of evidence that lose their image when placed on the dynamic screen of the entire record, as we think they must be. Cf. United States v. Browner, 889 F.2d 549, 554-55 (5th Cir. 1989). Few verdicts reached after lengthy trials could survive such an appellate role. In short, a scintilla rule can, in application, turn a criminal trial and the review of a conviction into a sporting contest for lawyers. Cf. Harrison, 55 F.3d at 168 (noting that evidence must be sufficient to warrant instruction lest the instruction serve “merely as a device for defendant to invoke the mercy-dispensing prerogative of the jury”). When the contended-for inference becomes an absurdity in light of all the facts adduced at trial, we invade no province of the jury in refusing to pretend it has probative value. See Sparf, 156 U.S. at 64-106, 15 S.Ct. at 278-95. None of this diminishes the role of the jury. This country from the beginning has prized the role of the jury. That rich history has also recognized that trial judges have roles and responsibilities too. Id. Of course, our able brother in dissent contends for none of these untoward results. In our view, however, these realities lie behind and are reflected in our insistence that evidence be more than a scintilla, that it be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt that the defendants did not act in self defense. We hold that the district court was not obligated to give the proposed self-defense instruction and did not err in the instruction it gave. It is true, as a general proposition, that self-defense and the related defense of another are affirmative defenses to both murder and voluntary manslaughter. However, these general principles must accommodate a citizen’s duty to accede to lawful government power and the special protection due federal officials discharging official duties. See United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 679, 95 S.Ct. 1255, 1261, 43 L.Ed.2d 541 (1975). “We do not need citizen avengers who are authorized to respond to unlawful police conduct by gunning down the offending officers.” United States v. Johnson, 542 F.2d 230, 233 (5th Cir.1976). Other, nonviolent remedies are available. Id. We need not explore the law of self-defense in confrontations between citizens and law enforcement officers to answer the question asked in this case. As we will explain, a reasonable juror could not doubt that the defendants knew their targets were federal agents. Equally, the defendants responded to the agents’ lawful force with a deadly barrage of gunfire. Given the extraordinary amount of automatic and large-caliber gunfire that the defendants rained upon persons they knew were federal agents, the law offers no shelter for pleas that the defendant used only force that was “responsive to excessive force.” The legal claim simply has no factual leg. That the district court allowed self-defense to the minder charges is nothing about which the defendants can complain. Whether correct or not, we need not decide. That instruction regarding murder seeds no right to a similar plea of self-defense to voluntary manslaughter. Our issue is error, not symmetry. In sum, the evidence did not require the proposed self-defense instruction. Of course, the defendants may have feared for their life once gunfire erupted, but that fear does not warrant a self-defense instruction. There must be sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might infer, at a minimum, either that 1) the defendants did not know the ATF agents’ identity, see United States v. Morton, 999 F.2d 435, 437-38 (9th Cir.1993), or that 2) the ATF agents’ use of force, viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. See United States v. Span, 970 F.2d 573, 577 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 921, 113 S.Ct. 1283, 122 L.Ed.2d 676 (1993). That evidence was not adduced at trial. B. The record belies the defendants’ contention that they did not know the identity of the ATF agents outside the compound on February 28th. In addition to their long preparation for the arrival of law officers, Koresh and the defendants had specific knowledge well in advance that the raid of February 28th was coming. On the morning of the raid, Koresh told the ATF’s undercover agent, Roberto Rodriguez, who briefly visited the Davidians that morning, that “neither the ATF or National Guard will ever get me. They got me once and they’ll never get me again.” Koresh repeatedly said, “They’re coming, Robert. They’re coming.” Several Davidians overheard Koresh’s remarks. Other residents also learned of the impending ATF raid. Craddock, for example, learned that David Jones had heard that seventy-five ATF agents had arrived at the airport and that there might be a raid. Even if we assume that not every defendant had been forewarned of this specific raid, the record demonstrates beyond doubt that by the time the agents arrived at the compound, defendants knew the agents’ identity as federal law enforcement officers. ATF Special Agent Roland Ballesteros, who was one of the first agents to approach the front of the compound after the raid began, testified that as he ran toward the front door of the compound, he saw David Koresh standing in the open front doorway. Bal-lesteros yelled loudly “Police! Lay down!” and “Search Warrant!” to Koresh several times. Koresh responded by asking “What’s going on?” and Ballesteros again yelled “Search Warrant! Lay Down!” As Balleste-ros approached the doorway, Koresh “made some kind of smirk” and then closed the door. Ballesteros testified that “there was no doubt in my mind that [Koresh] knew who we were and what we were there for.” Other agents also testified that they heard shouts of “Police”, “Search Warrant,” and “Federal agents” as they exited the cattle trailers and approached the compound. Even though a reasonable juror could doubt that the Davidians heard the repeated cries of “police” and “search warrant”, a reasonable juror could not overlook the visible indicators of the agents’ identity. The Davidians point out that neither the cattle trailers nor the helicopters had government markings on them. However, most of the ATF agents, including the first agents to approach the compound, wore “full raid gear.” This gear included military-style helmets and black, bullet-resistant vests. Significantly, the vests had a large, gold ATF badge and the words “ATF” and “Police” inscribed in bright yellow, inch-high letters on their fronts. “ATF” and “Police” were also emblazoned on the back of the vests in large, yellow letters visible at a distance. Some agents wore “baseball” hats with a large yellow badge on the front. These markings were plainly visible in the broad daylight that morning and informed anyone who looked that these were federal law enforcement officials. This was not the garb of unidentified assailants. The notion that this was some alien and unidentified army is beyond the pale. The defendants point to the testimony of Kathryn Schroeder, a Davidian present in the compound during the raid who later testified on behalf of the Government. She testified that she did not see the ATF markings on the uniforms nor did she hear the agents announce their purpose or identity as they approached the residence. Schroeder’s view of the agents, however, was obstructed by a four-and-a-half foot high, wooden fence in front of her first-floor window. In contrast, the Davidians in the front foyer and on the second floor — the location from which most of the gunfire came — had an unobstructed view of the approaching ATF agents. Schroeder acknowledged that she assumed that the individuals approaching the compound were government officials. Indeed, Koresh had long taught that the Government — the “beast” — would come. Finally and most importantly, Sehroeder’s testimony does not suggest that the defendants did not know the agents’ identity and purpose. That one Davidian, who did not participate in the gun battle, who remained under her bed for the duration of it, and who did not confirm the identity she assumed, says nothing about the knowledge of those armed and participating in the battle. Not even Schroeder will deny that the Davidians knew the agents’ identity. See United States v. Jackson, 726 F.2d 1466, 1468 (9th Cir.1984) (noting that witnesses’ testimony that they heard no police warning “is not evidence that the officers did not identify themselves”). Viewing the record as a whole and in the light most favorable to the defendants, we are not persuaded that a reasonable jury could harbor a reasonable doubt that the defendants knew the approaching ATF agents’ identity. To the contrary, the evidence in the record fits well with other cases affirming the refusal to give a self-defense or knowledge of official identity instruction. See, e.g., United States v. Streit, 962 F.2d 894, 898 (9th Cir.) (noting that “record contains ample evidence indicating that the men clearly identified themselves as FBI agents and that Streit was aware of their official status”), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 962, 113 S.Ct. 431, 121 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992); Alvarez, 755 F.2d at 844-45 & n. 15 (noting that “agents who converged on the motel loudly announced their presence and identity”); see also United States v. Ochoa, 526 F.2d 1278, 1282 & nn. 4, 5 (5th Cir.1976) (rejecting the defendant’s claim that he did not know the agents’ identity where, like here, the evidence in the record indicated that the agents had announced their identity and wore official raid jackets with insignia visible). C. The record also belies the contention that the ATF agents used excessive force. The defendants raise three arguments: First, that the ATF fired the first shots on February 28; second, that regardless of who fired first, the ATF fired indiscriminately into the compound, endangering the lives of women and children; and, third, that excessive force was inherent in the nature of the raid ATF conducted. The evidence in the record does not support any of these claims. 1. The evidence does not permit any reasonable inference but that the Davidians fired the first shots that morning. Agent after agent testified that the first shots they heard on February 28 came from the compound. In addition to the testimony of the ATF agents, reporters for the local newspaper and television station who witnessed the gunfight testified that the first shots were fired, from the compound. In response to this evidence, the defendants point to three pieces of evidence. First, the Davidians point to a statement given by Agent Ballesteros to the Texas Rangers shortly after the February 28 raid. In that statement, Ballesteros reported that he assumed that the first shots that he heard came from the ATF “dog team” shooting the Davidians’ guard dogs. At trial, however, Ballesteros testified that he no longer believed his earlier assumption. Rather, he testified that the first shots originated from the compound. Moreover, the evidence at trial contradicted the foundation for his earlier assumption. The “dog team” never shot the dogs in the compound, as it was assigned to do. Second, the defendants point to the testimony of Jack Zimmermann, but his testimony sheds no light on who fired first. Zimmermann, an attorney for one of the Davidians, visited the compound on April 1, more than a month after the ATF raid. Zimmermann testified that he observed bullet holes in the front door and walls of the compound. In his opinion, the holes had been caused by shots coming from outside the compound. However, Zimmermann acknowledged that he could not tell who fired first. At most, his testimony indicates that gunfire was exchanged. Third, the defendants rely on a statement that defendant Castillo gave to the Texas Rangers after he exited the compound on April 19. In that statement, Castillo described the scene at the front door of the compound on February 28 as the ATF agents unloaded from the cattle trailers and approached the residence. According to Castillo, Koresh held the front door ajar and said, “Wait a minute, there’s women and children in here.” Castillo claimed that gunfire immediately erupted through the door from the outside, injuring Koresh. This self-serving, post-arrest statement, however, is not sufficient to warrant the requested instruction. It stands alone against the uniform and overwhelming testimony of numerous agents and members of the media and, significantly, against the undisputed physical facts. That every ATF agent and member of the media who testified under oath at trial disputed this version of the facts, which Castillo related in an unsworn post-arrest statement, is perhaps powerful enough, but we do not rest there. Castillo’s unsworn observation cannot be squared with undisputed facts. The ATF agents testified that as they approached the residence, they heard gunfire coming from the front of the compound. Agent Balleste-ros was one of the first agents out of the cattle trailer that stopped in front of the compound. The agents who followed Bal-lesteros out of the trailer came under large caliber and automatic gunfire. As Balleste-ros ran to his assigned position at the front door, he saw Koresh standing in the foyer holding one of the double front doors open. According to Castillo’s post-arrest statement, Koresh announced that there were women and children in the compound; after that announcement, gunfire came through the door and, he “believed,” Koresh was hit. At that time, Ballesteros was either at or near the front door. Ballesteros was carrying a shotgun loaded with oo-buckshot at the ready position. If fired, the shotgun blast would have been conspicuous. Its telling signature was absent as demonstrated by photographs of the gunbattle at the front of the compound. Rather, Ballesteros, who was hit after Koresh closed the door, took cover in the dog pen next to the front door, where he remained, pinned down, for the duration of the gunbattle. In other words, to accept Castillo’s unsworn recollection of events, a reasonable juror would have had to believe either that Ballesteros shot at Koresh at the front door or that some other ATF agent fired through Ballesteros to the front door. Neither version works. Castillo’s unsworn recollection is no more than a scintilla of evidence that, when viewed in light of the testimony and evidence in this six-week-long trial, does not support the contested-for inference. Even if it did, Castillo, the sole defendant capable of claiming the inferential benefit of his post-arrest statement, would be not entitled to the self-defense instruction as a matter of law. It is a necessary precondition to the claim of self-defense that the defendants be free from fault in prompting the ATF’s use of force. Wallace v. United States, 162 U.S. 466, 472, 16 S.Ct. 859, 861-62, 40 L.Ed. 1089 (1896); see also Melchior v. Jago, 723 F.2d 486, 493 (6th Cir.1983) (noting that under Ohio law, “it is a necessary condition of the right to claim self defense that the accused killer be without fault”), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 952, 104 S.Ct. 2156, 80 L.Ed.2d 542 (1984). “One cannot provoke a fight and then rely on a claim of self-defense when that provocation results in a counterattack, unless he has previously withdrawn from the fray and communicated this withdrawal.” Harris v. United States, 364 F.2d 701 (D.C.Cir.1966) (per curiam); see also Andersen, 170 U.S. at 508, 18 S.Ct. at 696 (noting that self-defense is unavailable where accused “brings on the difficulty for the purpose of killing the deceased, or violation of law on his part is the reason of his expectation of an attack”); Addington v. United States, 165 U.S. 184, 187-88, 17 S.Ct. 288, 289-90, 41 L.Ed. 679 (1897) (same); Gourko v. United States, 153 U.S. 183, 191, 14 S.Ct. 806, 809, 38 L.Ed. 680 (1894) (same); Rowe v. United States, 370 F.2d 240, 241 (D.C.Cir.1966) (per curiam) (same). Judge Spottswood Robinson explained in United States v. Peterson, 483 F.2d 1222 (D.C.Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1007, 94 S.Ct. 367, 38 L.Ed.2d 244 (1973): It has long been accepted that one cannot support a claim of self-defense by a self-generated necessity to kill. The right of homicidal self-defense is granted only to those, free from fault in the difficulty; it is denied to slayers who incite the fatal attack, encourage the fatal quarrel or otherwise promote the necessitous occasion for taking life. The fact that the deceased struck the first blow, fired the first shot or made the first menacing gesture does not legalize the self-defense claim if in fact the claimant was the actual provoker. Id. at 1231 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added). We need not define precisely the line separating lawful conduct from unlawful provocation to hold that Castillo’s conduct falls on the impermissible side of the line. Although we agree that engaging in unlawful conduct requiring law enforcement officials to investigate does not, by itself, constitute provocation, “an affirmative unlawful act reasonably calculated to produce an affray foreboding injurious or fatal consequences is an aggression which, unless renounced, nullifies the right of homicidal self-defense.” Id. at 1233 (footnotes omitted). We are not persuaded that Castillo was entitled to any self-defense instruction even if the events occurred as he related them in his post-arrest statement. In United States v. Thomas, 34 F.3d 44, 48 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 527, 130 L.Ed.2d 431 (1994), and cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 683, 130 L.Ed.2d 614 (1994), and cert. denied, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 774, 130 L.Ed.2d 670 (1995), and cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1134, 130 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1995), the Second Circuit held that defendants who had been convicted of murder were not entitled to a self-defense instruction where the jury had also convicted the defendants of the attempted robbery of the deceased. The court explained that the defendants’ “need to defend themselves arose out of their own armed aggression.” Id. Similarly, in Laney v. United States, 294 F. 412, 413 (D.C.Cir.1923), the court affirmed the manslaughter conviction of a defendant who successfully fled a race riot but then left his safe haven in search of the rioters. The court explained that “when [the defendant] adjusted his gun and stepped out in the areaway, he had every reason to believe that his presence there would provoke trouble. We think his conduct in adjusting his revolver and going into the areaway was such as to deprive him of any right to invoke the plea of self-defense.” Id. at 414. The jury convicted Castillo of using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. The predicate crime of violence was conspiracy to murder federal agents. This included stockpiling military-type weapons and preparing for the fight with the “beast”. Moreover, according to Castillo’s own description of the events in his post-arrest statement, he donned battle dress upon learning of the impending ATF raid. He retrieved his assault rifle and raced to the front door. We are persuaded that Castillo’s retrieval of an assault rifle and his preparation for a gunbat-tle, all occurring as part of the conspiracy to murder federal agents that the jury necessarily found him guilty of as part of its verdict on the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) weapons charge, deprived Castillo of any claim of self-defense. A member of a conspiracy to murder federal agents, who dresses for combat, retrieves an assault rifle, and proceeds to the front door to confront government agents executing a lawful warrant, is not entitled to claim the benefit of self-defense when the hoped-for confrontation with the agents occurs. Nor may Castillo claim the benefit of the “imperfect” version of self-defense. Some contend that a defendant who played a role in creating the confrontation that led to a homicide may not escape culpability altogether but may nevertheless reduce his crime from murder to manslaughter. See 2 W. LaFave & A Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 7.11(a) (1986); see also Wallace, 162 U.S. at 472-73, 16 S.Ct. at 862. We need not enter this academic debate, however. The trial judge avoided it by giving the self-defense instruction to the murder charge. Castillo was convicted of manslaughter; his failure to be free from fault, at the least, negates his plea of self-defense to the charge of manslaughter. In short, these pieces of evidence, even when considered together in the light most favorable to the defendants, do not support an inference that the agents fired the first shot. Moreover, even evidence that the ATF agents fired the first shot would not have been sufficient by itself to warrant the self-defense instruction. The ATF agents testified that ATF policy and training directed agents to fire only if they saw an individual threatening the agent’s or someone else’s life. Initiating gunfire in those circumstances would not be unreasonable. Although the defendants contend that the ATF did not follow its own policy but fired indiscriminately into the compound, that argument proves the point: evidence that the ATF fired first without evidence that such fire was indiscriminate or otherwise excessive does not warrant a self-defense instruction. 2. The Davidians point out that several ATF agents testified that firing through walls and into windows in which there was no discernable threat would be unreasonable because of the danger to innocents and the possibility for escalation. Seizing on this, the Davidians point to Kathryn Schroeder’s testimony that gunfire came through the window in her room at the beginning of the raid. In addition, the Davidians and Whiteeliff-in particular highlight Marjorie Thomas’ video deposition in which she stated that a gunshot shattered the window in her loft on the third floor as she watched the helicopters approach the compound at the beginning of the raid. This testimony will not support an inference that the ATF agents used excessive force. The pilots of the helicopters all testified that no shots were fired from the helicopters. Significantly, the unchallenged testimony is supported by the physical facts. The helicopters were unarmed, and the doors on the aircraft were closed, thereby preventing agents inside from firing on the compound. Thomas herself acknowledged that she did not know if the bullet that shattered her window came from the helicopter. Regardless, there was no evidence that any of the defendants either came under indiscriminate, unprovoked fire or knew that such fire was taking place. Even if, for example, the National Guard helicopters did fire, the contended-for inference that the four defendants acted in self-defense by letting loose a volley of fire upon the ATF agents on the other side of the large compound is untenable. The dissent’s focus upon the testimony of Kathryn Schroeder and Marjorie Thomas forgets that neither is among those convicted of the voluntary manslaughter of federal agents. That Schroeder or Thomas may have been, if charged, entitled to the self-defense instruction does not mean that the four defendants convicted of voluntary manslaughter are so entitled. The question is whether there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could infer that one of the four defendants, not an uncharged resident present somewhere in the compound, acted in response to excessive force. There are no vicarious defenses. Our refusal to attribute Schroeder’s and Thomas’ experiences and knowledge to all the residents of the compound highlights a fundamental difference between the majority and the dissent in their approach to the evidence. We agree that “each defendant is entitled to individual consideration of the charges against him and his defenses.” See post at 747. It is also the case, we think, that the knowledge of one resident cannot simply be imputed to all who are at the compound. Defendants need not testify regarding their own knowledge, but there must be sufficient evidence to reasonably infer that the defendants knew of and were responding to excessive force. Here, there was none. Neither Thomas nor Schroeder testified that they told any of the defendants about the gunfire they witnessed. Indeed, Schroeder remained in her room, never relating her experience during the gunfight to others. Nor is there evidence that any defendant could otherwise have had that knowledge in this large, multi-building compound, particularly during the raging gunbattle that the defendants own actions provoked. 3. Finally, the Davidians argue that excessive force was inherent in the nature of the ATF raid. According to the defendants, sending over seventy well-armed agents to arrest Koresh and execute a search warrant for a residence housing women and children was excessive. We disagree. The execution of search and arrest warrants necessarily involves some degree of force. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. at 1871-72; Strait, 962 F.2d at 899. The ATF had cause to believe that the Davidians had amassed a large supply of weaponry, including grenades and fully automatic assault rifles. In light of this knowledge and the concern that other methods would endanger the lives of residents of the center, the ATF concluded that a “dynamic entry” raid was the proper method to execute the search and arrest warrants. This evidence will not support an inference of unreasonable force. Nor is there evidence that the agents possessed an excessive amount of firepower under the circumstances. All of the agents carried 9 millimeter pistols and a limited supply of ammunition. Of the seventy-plus agents participating in the raid, only six agents carried AR-15 semiautomatic rifles capable of shooting rounds that could penetrate a wall. None of the weapons were fully automatic, though some could fire in two-round bursts. Indeed, as events bore out, the ATF possessed too little, not too much, firepower. Surely, a citizen may not initiate a firelight solely on the ground that the police sent too many well-armed officers to arrest him. The suggestion that a defendant would be entitled to claim self-defense simply by pointing to the police’s tactical decision to send twenty heavily-armed officers instead of two lightly-armed ones is untenable. We reject this invitation for individuals to forcibly resist arrest and then put their arresters on trial for the reasonableness of their tactical decisions. We conclude that the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense and the defense of another with regard to the voluntary manslaughter charge. IV. A. After several days of deliberations, the jury returned its verdict acquitting all of the Davidians on Count 1 for conspiring to murder federal agents. The jury convicted Av-raam, Branch, Castillo, Craddock, and Whi-tecliff on Count 3 for using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to the crime charged in Count 1. Believing that the two verdicts were inconsistent, the district court summoned the attorneys to the bench before announcing the verdict. The Government suggested sending the jury back for more deliberations to resolve the perceived inconsistency. The defense attorneys opposed that suggestion and asked the court to render a verdict of not guilty on Count 3. Apparently agreeing with the defense, Judge Smith stated that “I don’t see anyway [the jury] can correct their mistake except by a finding of not guilty on Count Three.” Judge Smith ended the bench conference without announcing a ruling. The jury’s verdict was announced. Judge Smith asked whether anyone desired to poll the jury. No attorney responded. Judge Smith discharged the jury. After the jury had left, Judge Smith announced his intention to issue a written order setting aside the guilty verdict on Count 3: The guilty finding as to Count Three will have to be set aside, because, of necessity, the jury could not find a Defendant guilty of that offense without first having found that Defendant guilty of the Conspiracy offense alleged in Count One, and the jury found all Defendants not guilty of that offense. So, that portion of the verdict simply cannot stand. There seemed to be no point in asking the jury to retire and reconsider it, because the only decision they could have made was to change that finding to not guilty, so the Court will set that finding aside. Two days later, the Government moved to reinstate the jury’s verdict on Count 3. The Government argued that the jury’s decision to acquit the defendants on the predicate offense charged in Count 1 did not require an acquittal on the compound offense charged in Count 3. The Davidians responded, arguing that reinstatement of the jury’s verdict would violate their double jeopardy and due process rights. The district court rejected the Davi-dians’ arguments and reinstated the jury’s guilty verdict on Count 3 on March 9, 1994. Judge Smith acknowledged that there was no necessary inconsistency in the jury’s verdicts on Counts 1 and 3. See United States v. Munoz-Fabela, 896 F.2d 908, 911 (5th Cir.) (noting that “it is only the fact of the offense, and not a conviction, that is needed to establish the required predicate” under § 924(e)), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 824, 111 S.Ct. 76, 112 L.Ed.2d 49 (1990); United States v. Ruiz, 986 F.2d 905, 911 (5th Cir.) (holding that acquittal on predicate offense does not bar conviction under § 924(c)), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 848, 114 S.Ct. 145, 126 L.Ed.2d 107 (1993); see also United States v. Powell 469 U.S. 57, 67-69, 105 S.Ct. 471, 478-79, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984). On appeal, most of the Davidians appear to accept that much. Rather, the Davidians reurge their double jeopardy and due process arguments. Regarding double jeopardy, the Da-vidians claim that the district court’s comments at the side-bar conference constituted a pre-verdict judgment of acquittal on Count 3. According to the defendants, reversal of a pre-verdict judgment of acquittal constitutes double jeopardy. We disagree. The district court did not announce any formal ruling at the side-bar conference before receiving the jury’s verdict. To the contrary, he ended the bench conference without comment and ordered the clerk to read the jury’s verdict, including the verdict on Count 3. Even one of the defense attorneys inquired after the publication of the verdict “what the Court was going to do” on Count 3. The jury’s verdict became final when it was announced in open court and the defendants were given the opportunity to poll the jury. United States v. White, 972 F.2d 590, 595 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1007, 113 S.Ct. 1651, 123 L.Ed.2d 272 (1993), and cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1007, 113 S.Ct. 1651, 123 L.Ed.2d 272 (1993). Even were we to construe the comments at the bench conference as a formal ruling setting aside the jury’s verdict on Count 3, it would not be a judgment of acquittal. “[A] defendant is acquitted only when ‘the ruling of the judge, whatever its label, actually represents a resolution [in the defendant’s favor], correct or not, of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged.’ ” United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 97, 98 S.Ct. 2187, 2197, 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978) (quoting United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 571, 97 S.Ct. 1349, 1355, 51 L.Ed.2d 642 (1977)). That the district court rendered a decision in favor of the defendants prior to the publication of the jury’s verdict does not bar the Government from seeking to overturn that decision, either at the district court or on appeal, unless the decision rests on a determination that the Government’s evidence is legally insufficient to sustain a conviction. Scott, 437 U.S. at 97, 100, 98 S.Ct. at 2197, 2198. The record is clear that Judge Smith did not direct his comments at the bench conference to the sufficiency of the evidence on Count 3. Rather, he shared with counsel a misapprehension regarding the validity of inconsistent jury verdicts. The record establishes that it is solely that misapprehension, understandable in that tension-filled moment, and not any doubt regarding the sufficiency of the evidence that led Judge Smith to set aside the jury’s verdict. The district court’s post-verdict decision to set aside the jury’s verdict gives defendants no comfort. The Fifth Amendment does not bar the government from appealing post-verdict judgments of acquittal. United States v. Boyd, 566 F.2d 929, 932 (5th Cir.1978); Government of the Virgin Islands v. Christensen, 673 F.2d 713, 718-19 (3d Cir.1982). A fortiori, the district court’s own reinstatement of a final jury verdict of guilt—or, stated another way, the district court’s decision to reverse its earlier decision—does not twice put defendants in jeopardy. United States v. LaSpesa, 956 F.2d 1027, 1034 (11th Cir.1992). The Davidians also claim that reinstating the guilty verdict denied them due process. The Davidians argue that they relied on the Judge’s comments at the bench conference suggesting that he agreed that the guilty verdict on Count 3 had to be set aside and did not ask Judge Smith to instruct the jury to render a directed verdict of not guilty on Count 3 or, alternatively, to order the jury to resume deliberations to resolve the inconsistent verdicts. In essence, the Davidians contend that they were “sandbagged” by the district court. Neither the Constitution nor general principles of federal criminal law require a district court, when confronted with inconsistent jury verdicts, to instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty on all counts. In Harris v. Rivera, 454 U.S. 339, 348, 102 S.Ct. 460, 465-66, 70 L.Ed.2d 530 (1981), the Supreme Court rejected a due process challenge to a conviction based on an inconsistent verdict. “Inconsistency in a verdict is not a sufficient reason for setting it aside.” Id. at 345, 102 S.Ct. at 464. What Harris established as a matter of constitutional law, United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 65, 105 S.Ct. 471, 476-77, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984), reaffirmed as a matter of federal criminal law. In short, the district court was under no duty, constitutional or otherwise, to instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty on Count 3. To the contrary, Powell precluded that option. Similarly, the district court was not obligated to return the jury for further deliberations, to resolve the inconsistent verdicts. Powell may mandate, and certainly points the district court to accept inconsistent verdicts. 469 U.S. at 69, 105 S.Ct. at 479. As a practical matter, pushing a jury to continue its work when it has a final verdict risks other difficulties. See United States v. Straach, 987 F.2d 232, 242-43 (5th Cir.1993) (noting that “a judge errs in instructing the jury to deliberate further if the jury has reached a final verdict”); White, 972 F.2d at 594-95 (same). Even if the Davidians were “due” this option, the district court did not deprive them of it. At the bench conference, the Government recommended that the jury be sent back to continue deliberating, but defense counsel adamantly opposed that suggestion. Castillo separately contends that the district court’s reinstatement of the jury’s guilty verdict on Count 3 deprived the Davi-dians of the opportunity to poll the jury. Rule 31(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that, before the verdict is recorded, “the jury shall be polled at the request of any party or upon the court’s own motion.” A defendant can waive his right to a jury poll by failing to request the court to poll the jury. United States v. Beldin, 737 F.2d 450, 455 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1075, 105 S.Ct. 572, 83 L.Ed.2d 512 (1984). The Davidians waived their right to have the jury polled by failing to make a timely request. After the clerk read the jury’s verdict, Judge Smith asked whether anyone desired that the jury be polled, and seeing no response, remarked, “I take it not.” He then discharged the jury. That the Davidians misapprehended the need to poll the jury on Count 3 due to their mistaken belief that Judge Smith had set aside the guilty verdict does not excuse their failure to request the poll. Indeed, even after the Government moved to reinstate the jury’s verdict on Count 3, the Davidians did not specifically complain that reinstatement would violate their right to have the jury polled. Finally, Craddock separately contends that the district court’s reinstatement of the jury’s verdict violates his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because his attorney was not called to participate in the bench conference after the jury returned with its verdict. The Sixth Amendment entitles the defendant to the assistance of counsel at all “critical stages” of a criminal proceeding. Tucker v. Day, 969 F.2d 155, 159 (5th Cir. 1992). The pre-verdict bench conference was not a critical stage of the Davidians’ trial, however. The district court rendered no decision regarding the inconsistent verdicts at the bench conference. To the contrary, the bench conference was a brief, “informational meeting” at which the district court informally advised counsel of the jury’s verdict and at which no prejudicial action was taken. Cf. People v. Hardy, 2 Cal.4th 86, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 796, 864, 825 P.2d 781, 849, cert. denied, 506 U.S. 987, 113 S.Ct. 498, 121 L.Ed.2d 435 (1992), and cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1056, 113 S.Ct. 987, 122 L.Ed.2d 139 (1993); Roker v. State, 262 Ga. 220, 416 S.E.2d 281, 283 (1992). After the jury’s verdict was announced, Craddock’s counsel had the opportunity to poll the jury, to address the district court regarding the inconsistent verdicts, and, eventually, to respond to the Government’s motion to reinstate the jury’s verdict. We are not persuaded that the district court’s failure to call Craddock’s counsel to the preverdict bench conference violated Craddock’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In short, the district court’s decision to reinstate the jury’s guilty verdict on Count 3 was correct. B. The district court sua sponte ordered the use of an anonymous jury. Whiteeliff, along with Avraam and Branch, objected to the court’s order, claiming that the use of an anonymous jury violated their right to a fair trial before an impartial jury. Fatta approved the anonymous jury. On appeal, Whiteeliff argues that the use of an anonymous jury hindered the selection of an impartial jury and led jurors to believe that defendants posed some threat of harm to them, thereby undermining the presumption of innocence. Pointing out that most eases upholding the use of anonymous juries have involved organized crime or violent drug syndicates threatening to disrupt the judicial process, the Davidians argue that, to justify an anonymous jury, it is “crucial” that there be evidence that the defendants or their associates pose some threat to the judicial process and that there was no evidence that any of the defendants or individuals associated with them was a threat to the jury- Referring to the jury as “anonymous” is misleading. Anonymity has long been an important element of our jury system. Jurors are randomly summoned from the community at large to decide the single case before them and, once done, to “inconspicuously fade back into the community.” United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 (1988); see also 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries *378. “Anonymous jury” has come to mean something different in recent years, signaling the district court’s decision to withhold certain biographical information about potential jurors from the parties involved. That said, we should be wary of painting with too broad a brush. “Anonymous” juries include those about whom more has been concealed than here. See, e.g., United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507, 1519 (11th Cir.1994) (withholding names, addresses, places of employment, and spouses’ names and places of employment), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 2558, 132 L.Ed.2d 812 (1995). The jurors here were not “anonymous” except in the most literal sense. The district court ordered only the jurors’ names and addresses be withheld from the parties. Otherwise, the court provided the defendants with a wealth of information about the venire, including occupations and names of employers. The decision to withhold biographical information about the jurors from the parties in a criminal prosecution is weighty, its validity turning on the individual, fact-specific circumstances of each case. Deciding to withhold even the name and address of a member of the venire “requirefs] a trial court to make a sensitive appraisal of the climate surrounding a trial and a prediction as to the potential security or publicity problems that may arise dining the proceedings.” United States v. Childress, 58 F.3d 693, 702 (D.C.Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 825, 133 L.Ed.2d 768 (1996). Accordingly, we review such a district court decision for abuse of discretion. United States v. Krout, 66 F.3d 1420, 1426 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 963, 133 L.Ed.2d 884 (1996), and cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 963, — L.Ed.2d-(1996). “ ‘[T]he use of an anonymous jury is constitutional when there is strong reason to believe the jury needs protection and the district court takes reasonable precautions to minimize any prejudicial effects on the defendant and to ensure that his fundament