[489]*489WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J.
¶ 1. We are asked to decide under what circumstances a circuit court may restrict the disclosure of juror information in a criminal trial, and, if juror information is restricted, what precautions must be taken to avoid prejudice to the criminal defendant.
¶ 2. The defendant, Sherrie Tucker (Tucker), was convicted of possession with intent to deliver cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school while armed, in violation of Wis. Stat. §§ 961.41(lm)(cm), 939.05 and 961.49 (1999-2000).1 Prior to jury selection, the circuit court judge told counsel off the record that "[i]t has been my practice to use numbers and not names in this court." The court proceeded to use numbers over defense counsel's objection "because it is a case involving sales of drugs." Although the jurors names were withheld from the record, both parties had access to all the juror information, including the jurors' names.
¶ 3. Tucker appealed her conviction, arguing that the use of numbers instead of the jurors' names constituted prejudicial error. The court of appeals certified the following issues to this court: (1) Whether voir dire by number constitutes an anonymous jury under State v. Britt, 203 Wis. 2d 25, 553 N.W.2d 528 (Ct. App. 1996), when the restriction only applies to using the jurors' names in open court; and (2) Whether Britt's holding that an anonymous jury may be empanelled only if there is a strong reason the jury needs protection should continue to be the legal standard in Wisconsin.
¶ 4. We hold that in accordance with the standard articulated in Britt, if a circuit court restricts any juror information, the court must make an individualized [490]*490determination that the jury needs protection and take reasonable precautions to minimize any prejudicial effect to the defendant. Therefore, we conclude that the circuit court in this case erroneously exercised its discretion in withholding the jurors' names from the record because it failed to make an individualized determination that the jury needed protection and failed to take reasonable precautions to minimize any prejudicial effect to Tucker. Nevertheless, we further conclude that the error was harmless based on the overwhelming evidence of Tucker's guilt.
¶ 5. Tucker also raised an issue regarding a ruling of the circuit court that denied the admission of out-of-court statements by an unavailable witness. We conclude that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion by refusing to admit the out-of-court statements by an unavailable witness since the court reached a reasonable conclusion through a rational process based upon the relevant facts. We further conclude that Tucker was not denied her constitutional right to present a defense based upon an independent review of the record.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 6. In March 1998, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at an apartment shared by Tucker and her boyfriend, Damien McCray (McCray). In the apartment, officers found cocaine in a bag marked "Shiree Tucker," a .38 caliber revolver, and bullets. Tucker made a statement to police after a Miranda2 warning was given, in which she admitted that the cocaine belonged to her and that she had been selling cocaine for about a month. Tucker was tried and [491]*491convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver within 1,000 feet of a school while armed with a dangerous weapon, which resulted in a seven-year prison sentence. The circuit court judge stayed the prison sentence and instead ordered seven years of probation for Tucker.
I. Restriction on Jurors' Names
¶ 7. Prior to jury selection for Tucker's trial, the circuit court judge told counsel off the record that "[i]t has been my practice to use numbers and not names in this court. . . . What I'm prohibiting is the names of jurors being stated in the courtroom and for the record when other people may be sitting in the audience and using those names for any other reason." When defense counsel objected, the judge explained that the use of numbers is appropriate because this was a case "involving drugs and an allegation of drug dealing which I think raises the bar to some extent in terms of any danger to jurors." The judge further explained that "it's the practice of this Court simply to use numbers and just go right into using numbers as opposed to names, not highlighting the fact that the numbers are used and certainly making no statement to jurors about numbers being used for safety or anything else." During the trial, the judge corrected defense counsel when he referred to a juror by name, stating "it's my practice to refer to the jurors by number, so please follow the practice." There was no other statement made in front of the jury regarding the use of numbers instead of their names.
II. Out-of-Court Statements
¶ 8. In December 1998, McCray was interviewed by defense investigator, Cynthia Kollath (Kollath) and Tucker's attorney. Kollath prepared a memorandum [492]*492that summarized the interview. At Tucker's trial, McCray invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege, so defense counsel sought to introduce McCray's statements through Kollath's memorandum. Defense counsel argued that McCray's statements should he admissible as statements against penal interest or alternatively, as statements made under the residual hearsay exception for unavailable witnesses. The circuit court found that neither of these hearsay exceptions applied in this case because the statements lacked the requisite indicia of trustworthiness. Tucker filed a postconviction motion seeking a new trial based on two issues: (1) Whether the circuit court erred by not admitting McCray's out-of-court statements; and (2) Whether she had been denied the right to present a fair defense. After a hearing, the circuit court denied Tucker's postconviction motion for a new trial.
¶ 9. The court of appeals certified issues regarding the definition and use of an anonymous jury in light of the standard announced in Britt, and Tucker appealed the circuit court's refusal to admit McCray's out-of-court statements under an exception to the hearsay rule.
ANALYSIS
I. "Anonymous" Juries
¶ 10. Appellate review of a circuit court's decision to use an anonymous jury examines whether the circuit court properly exercised its discretion. Britt, 203 Wis. 2d at 34. According to the Seventh Circuit, the review of a court's decision regarding an anonymous jury is for "abuse of discretion, and must be particularly deferential to the trial court's substantial discretion." United [493]*493States v. Crockett, 979 F.2d 1204, 1215 (7th Cir. 1992). The proper exercise of a circuit court's discretion requires a reasoning process that considers the applicable law and the facts of record, leading to a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach. State v. Jeske, 197 Wis. 2d 905, 912, 541 N.W.2d 225 (Ct. App. 1995). However, a circuit court erroneously exercises its discretion if it makes an error of law. State v. St. George; ¶ 37, 252 Wis. 2d 499, 643 N.W.2d 777.
¶ 11. The issues certified by the court of appeals deal with the definition of an "anonymous" jury and the circumstances under which an "anonymous" jury may be used. In this case, it may be more appropriate to describe the jury as a "numbers" jury instead of an "anonymous" jury since only the jurors' names were withheld from the record. Both parties had access to all the juror information, including the jurors' names. Furthermore, the public presumably could have obtained the jurors' names by inquiring at the clerk of courts' office. A jury is typically deemed "anonymous" when juror information is withheld from the public and the parties themselves. See, e.g., Crockett, 979 F.2d at 1215 n.10. Therefore, the jury in this case was not a classic "anonymous" jury. Notwithstanding whether the jury in this case is characterized as an "anonymous" or a "numbers" jury, if restrictions are placed on juror identification or information, due process concerns are raised regarding a defendant's rights to an impartial jury and a presumption of innocence. Accordingly, although this case does not deal with the classic "anonymous" jury, the reasoning in cases involving anonymous juries is beneficial to our analysis.
¶ 12. The empanelling of an anonymous jury is a relatively recent phenomenon that was rarely utilized [494]*494before the Second Circuit's opinion in United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121 (2d Cir. 1979)3. The court in Barnes addressed juror anonymity with respect to its effect on the practice of voir dire. Id. at 142. In Barnes, the district court ordered that the jurors' identities, addresses, religious affiliations, and ethnic backgrounds remain anonymous, even from the parties themselves. Id. at 133. The court began its analysis by noting a judge's broad discretion in conducting voir dire. Id. at 137. The court then examined each of the restrictions placed on juror information and concluded that the jurors' demeanors and responses to questions regarding their family, education and other matters would provide substantially the same information as the juror information that was restricted. Id. at 142. Consequently, the court rejected the argument that the defendant was denied the ability to intelligently exercise peremptory challenges. Id. In sum, the Second Circuit held that the circuit court had permitted adequate questioning of the jury and had acted in accordance with its responsibility "to protect the jury, to assure its privacy, and to avoid all possible mental blocks against impartiality." Id. at 141. Although not explicit, the court essentially weighed the need to protect the jury, which was prompted by the defendant's ties to the mafia, against the rights of the defendant to an impartial jury.
¶ 13. A few years later, the Second Circuit addressed a different concern with the use of an anonymous jury in United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359 (2d Cir. 1985). In Thomas, the defendants argued that an [495]*495anonymous jury is an unconstitutional infringement on a defendant's presumption of innocence because it gives jurors the impression that the defendant is dangerous and a threat to the jurors' safety. Id. at 1363. The court in Thomas acknowledged the fundamental tenet that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but nevertheless determined that an anonymous jury might be permissible if jurors are in need of protection. Id. at 1364-65. Therefore, the court rejected a per se rule against empanelling an anonymous jury, but concluded that an anonymous jury is warranted only if there is a "strong reason" to believe that the jury needs protection and if the court takes "reasonable precaution[s]" to minimize the impact of anonymity on the jurors' views of the defendant. Id. at 1365. The court noted that reasonable precautions were taken in that cáse, in part, because the judge gave the jury an "intelligent, reasonable and believable explanation for his actions that did not cast the defendants in an unfavorable light." Id. at 1364. In other words, the curative or precautionary instruction served to rebut any notion that the use of an anonymous jury was somehow a negative reflection on the defendant's guilt or character.
¶ 14. The Second Circuit's approach in Thomas has been widely adopted by both federal and state courts, including the Seventh Circuit and the Wisconsin court of appeals. See Crockett, 979 F.2d 1204; Britt, 203 Wis. 2d 25. The court of appeals in Britt held that a circuit court may, in its discretion, take reasonable steps to protect identifying information of jurors in a criminal case. Britt, 203 Wis. 2d at 34. In Britt, the circuit court had ruled that the jurors' names, addresses, and places of employment could not be publicly [496]*496revealed in open court or on the record; however, both parties had access to all juror information via written questionnaires.
¶ 15. Citing the Seventh Circuit's decision in Crockett, the Britt court concluded that a circuit court may empanel an anonymous jury if two criteria are met: (1) if there is a strong reason to believe that the jury needs protection; and (2) if reasonable precautions are taken to minimize any prejudicial effect to the defendant, so as to protect the defendant's rights to a fair and impartial jury. Id. at 34-36.
¶ 16. In Britt, the court of appeals concluded that the circuit court had satisfied both criteria and therefore properly exercised its discretion in empanelling an anonymous jury. Id. at 35, 38. First, the court cited several episodes of victim and witness intimidation prior to trial, and concluded that these constituted sufficient grounds to reasonably believe that the jury might also be subject to similar tactics, which warranted their protection. Id. at 35. Second, the court reasoned that the restrictions imposed by the circuit court were minimal since the parties were allowed to ask certain general questions regarding the jurors' residences and types of employment and were provided with all of the juror information via the written questionnaires. Thus, the court of appeals concluded that the circuit court had prudently balanced the jury's need for protection against the defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury. Id. at 37.
¶ 17. Similar to Britt, where juror information was only restricted in open court, the factual situation in this case does not involve a truly "anonymous" jury; nevertheless, we find the reasoning in Britt persuasive. Therefore, before a circuit court restricts any juror [497]*497information in an individual case, it should determine that the jurors are in need of protection and take reasonable precautions to avoid prejudice to the defendant. In this case, Tucker concedes that her opportunity for voir dire was not impeded since both parties had access to all the juror information. However, Tucker claims that her presumption of innocence was eroded by the circuit court's use of numbers without an individualized determination that the jury needed protection nor a precautionary statement made to the jury regarding the use of numbers instead of names.
¶ 18. Serious concerns regarding a defendant's presumption of innocence are raised when juror information is restricted, as in this case. As observed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, "[t]he em-panelment of an anonymous jury triggers due process scrutiny because this practice is likely to taint the jurors' opinion of the defendant, thereby burdening the presumption of innocence." Commonwealth v. Angiulo, 615 N.E.2d 155, 171 (Mass. 1993). Therefore, courts must attempt to ensure that "juror anonymity should not cast any adverse reflection upon the defendant . . . ." United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1025 (3d Cir. 1988). Similarly,. the Eleventh Circuit has stated,
Unquestionably, the empanelment of an anonymous jury is a drastic measure, one which should be undertaken only in limited and carefully delineated circumstances. An anonymous jury raises the specter that the defendant is a dangerous person from whom the jurors must be protected, thereby implicating the defendant's constitutional right to a presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence is "undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law."
[498]*498United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507, 1519 (11th Cir. 1994) (quoting Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 453 (1895)).
¶ 19. As illustrated by these federal and state court decisions, the restriction of juror information raises serious concerns regarding a defendant's rights to an impartial jury and a presumption of innocence. Accordingly, we uphold the two-prong test enunciated in Britt and conclude that if a court withholds any juror information, it must both: (1) find that a jury needs protection; and (2) take reasonable precautions to avoid prejudicing the defendant. We now examine whether the circuit court in this case satisfied this two-prong test.
¶ 20. The review of a circuit court's decision regarding the restriction of juror information is for abuse of discretion. Crockett, 979 F.2d at 1215. However, in order to properly exercise its discretion, a circuit court must "apply the correct standard of law to the facts at hand." State v. Margaret H., 2000 WI 42, ¶ 32, 234 Wis. 2d 606, 610 N.W.2d 475. This court will reverse a discretionary decision if the circuit court's exercise of discretion "is based on an error of law." Marten Transp. v. Hartford Specialty, 194 Wis. 2d 1, 13, 533 N.W.2d 452 (1995). Thus, despite a deferential standard of review, we hold that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by failing to apply the correct standard of law, namely the two-prong test announced in Britt.
¶ 21. First, the circuit court did not make an individualized determination that the jurors needed protection based on the specific circumstances present in Tucker's case. Rather, the court informed counsel that "it has been my practice to use numbers and not names" in drug cases. The circuit court repeatedly [499]*499referred to its "practice" of using numbers without specifically noting any particular factors that warranted the use of numbers in Tucker's case.
¶ 22. There are various factors that may be taken into account in making an individualized determination that a jury needs protection. Such factors may include, but are not limited to: (1) the defendant's involvement in organized crime; (2) the defendant's participation in a group with the capacity to harm jurors; (3) the defendant's past attempts to interfere with the judicial process; and (4) extensive publicity that could enhance the possibility that jurors' names would become public and expose them to intimidation or harassment. United States v. Darden, 70 F.3d 1507, 1532 (8th Cir. 1995); United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d at 1520.
¶ 23. Second, the circuit court did not take necessary precautions to minimize any prejudicial effect to Tucker. Although the circuit court explained the use of numbers instead of jurors' names to counsel off the record, the court did not make any statement to the jurors regarding its use of numbers. Rather, the jurors were just referred to by number instead of name. The only statement heard by the jurors regarding the use of numbers was when the circuit court corrected defense counsel by stating, "it's my practice to refer to the jurors by number, so please follow the practice." The circuit court did instruct the jury on Tucker's presumption of innocence and on the State's burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, we conclude that this instruction, by itself, was insufficient. When jurors' names are withheld, as in this case, the circuit court, at a minimum, must make a precautionary statement to the jury that the use of numbers instead of names [500]*500should in no way be interpreted as a reflection of the defendant's guilt or innocence. We recognize that in Britt, the circuit court apparently did not give a precautionary instruction to the jury; however, due to the potential for prejudice to the defendant, we conclude that such an instruction is necessary.
¶ 24. Any additional precautionary statements that are made to a jury when juror information is restricted should be based on factors and influences that may be present in a case, which could warrant withholding juror information. A precautionary statement must not mislead a jury, but must be based on factors and influences that are relevant in a particular case. In formulating a precautionary statement, a variety of factors and influences may be taken into account, as illustrated by statements that have been made by courts in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., United States v. DeLuca, 137 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 1998) (district court may instruct jury that their identities will be withheld to ensure that no extrajudicial information is conveyed to them); Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015 (district court may instruct jury that their anonymity is a precautionary measure to ensure that both sides get a fair trial); State v. Samonte, 928 P.2d 1 (Haw. 1996) (circuit court may instruct jury that anonymity is to protect jurors from contacts by the news media); State v. Bowles, 530 N.W.2d 521 (Minn. 1995) (circuit court may instruct jury that purpose of anonymity is to shield jurors from media harassment and undesirable publicity); State v. McKenzie, 532 N.W.2d 210 (Minn. 1995) (circuit court may instruct jury that they will remain anonymous to shield them from media harassment and ward off curiosity that might infringe on their privacy).
[501]*501¶ 25. Courts must ensure that the use of numbers or any other restriction on identifying juror information is not interpreted as a reflection of a defendant's guilt or character. Therefore, in addition to instructing the jury on Tucker's presumption of innocence, the circuit court should have also given a precautionary instruction to the jury regarding the use of numbers instead of their names in order to minimize any potential prejudicial effect to Tucker.
¶ 26. Although the circuit court erred by failing to satisfy the two-prong test under Britt, the error in this case was harmless. An "error is harmless if it is 'clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.'" State v. Harvey, ¶ 49, 254 Wis. 2d 442, 647 N.W.2d 189 (citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1,18 (1999)). In this case, Tucker admitted to police after she was given a Miranda warning that the cocaine belonged to her and that she had been selling cocaine for about a month. Tucker told police that she had purchased an "eight-ball" of cocaine and sold it in amounts of $20, $30, and $50 for a $150-$200 profit. In addition, the cocaine found in Tucker and McCray's apartment was in a plastic bag marked "Shiree Tucker." Although the initial focus in a harmless error analysis is the error itself, the error itself is evaluated in the context of the whole. In light of the overwhelming evidence in this case, we conclude that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found Tucker guilty notwithstanding the circuit court's error.
¶ 27. Based on all the above, we hold that when a circuit court restricts any juror information, the court must: (1) make an individualized determination that [502]*502the jury needs protection; and (2) take reasonable precautions to minimize any prejudicial effect to the defendant, which includes making a precautionary statement to the jury so that the restriction does not negatively reflect on the defendant's guilt or character. The circuit court in this case failed to satisfy this two-prong test; however, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of Tucker's guilt.
II. Admissibility of Out-of-Court Statements
¶ 28. Evidentiary rulings are generally reviewed with deference to determine whether the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in accordance with the facts and accepted legal standards. In re Michael R.B., 175 Wis. 2d 713, 720, 499 N.W.2d 641 (1993). This court will sustain an evidentiary ruling if " 'it finds that the circuit court examined the releyant facts; applied a proper standard of law; and using a demonstrative rational process, reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach.'" State v. Gray, 225 Wis. 2d 39, 48, 590 N.W.2d 918 (1999) (citing State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768, 780, 576 N.W.2d 30 (1998)). However, whether a circuit court infringes upon a defendant's right to present a defense is a question of constitutional fact that requires independent appellate review. State v. Pulizzano, 155 Wis. 2d 633, 648, 456 N.W.2d 325 (1990).
¶ 29. An out-of-court statement or "hearsay" is defined as "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Wis. Stat. § 908.01(3). In general, hearsay evidence is inadmissible; however, there are statutory exceptions to [503]*503this general rule. Wis. Stat. § 908.02. One exception to the hearsay rule is the admission of an unavailable declarant's statement against his or her penal interest. Wis. Stat. § 908.045(4). If a person invokes the privilege against self-incrimination, he or she is deemed "unavailable" for purposes of the hearsay rule. State v. Peck, 143 Wis. 2d 624, 644, 422 N.W.2d 160 (Ct. App. 1988). Therefore, as an initial matter, McCray was correctly deemed unavailable to testify at Tucker's trial since he had invoked the privilege against self-incriminatipn. Another exception to the hearsay rule, known as the "residual exception," permits admission of hearsay evidence that is not specifically addressed in the other exceptions, but possesses "comparable circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness." Wis. Stat. § 908.045(6).
¶ 30. Tucker claims that McCray's out-of-court statements are admissible under the exception regarding statements against one's penal interest. Tucker argues that the following out-of-court statements made by McCray illustrate that they were against his penal interest: "I'm fittin' to go to the penitentiary," his statement that the drugs did not belong to Tucker and that she had no involvement with the drugs, and his statement of "yeah, right" when asked whether the drugs belonged to him. Tucker also claims that McCray's invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights indicates that his statements were against his penal interest.
¶ 31. Alternatively, Tucker argues that McCray's out-of-court statements are admissible under the residual exception because his statements were corroborated and are therefore trustworthy. Tucker claims that she is entitled to a new trial because the circuit court committed prejudicial error by not admitting McCray's out-of-court statements.
[504]*504¶ 32. At the postconviction hearing, the circuit court upheld its prior ruling that McCray's statements were not admissible as either statements against penal interest or under the residual exception to the hearsay rule. The circuit court noted that McCray's statements attempted to exculpate Tucker without inculpating himself. For example, in McCray's statements of "I'm fittin' to go to the penitentiary," and that Tucker was not involved with the drugs, McCray never actually took responsibility for the drugs. The court noted that nowhere in Kollath's memo did McCray ever explicitly state that the drugs belonged to him; rather, his statements were only aimed at exculpating Tucker. With respect to McCray's response of "yeah, right" when asked whether the drugs belonged to him, the court realistically interpreted the statement as meaning "yeah, right, as if I would ever admit to that." This is a reasonable interpretation in light of the fact that the overriding concern throughout Kollath's memo was that McCray did not want to be incarcerated regardless of what happened to Tucker. Therefore, the court concluded that McCray's statements were not clearly against his penal interest, nor were they sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible under the residual exception.
¶ 33. The circuit court also considered whether its evidentiary ruling that McCray's out-of-court statements were inadmissible violated Tucker's constitutional right to a fair trial, particularly her right to present a defense. Upon reviewing the United States Supreme Court's decision in Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973), the circuit court distinguished Tucker's situation from the one in Chambers, where the defendant was denied a fair trial due to the cumulative impact of various evidentiary rulings. The court noted [505]*505that Tucker had been allowed to testify to the statements made by McCray in order to show why she made her statements to the police. However, the court concluded that McCray's statements "were properly excluded for the truth of the matter asserted and that the combination of those doesn't rise to a level in which she was denied her due process right to a fair trial."
¶ 34. Upon independent review of the trial transcripts and the postconviction hearing, we agree with the circuit court's determination that Tucker was not denied the constitutional right to a fair trial. We conclude that the circuit court demonstrated a rational process in making a reasonable evidentiary ruling on the admissibility of McCray's out-of-court statements. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court did not err by refusing to admit McCray's out-of-court statements under either the exception for statements against penal interest or the residual exception to the hearsay rule.
By the Court. — The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.