Keeping jurors names from the public

July 19, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When is it appropriate to delay the release of juror’s names in a trial? That’s an issue that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals sidestepped last week on an appeal of the decision of the District judge in former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s trial to keep confidential the names of the jurors until after the trial is finished, which could take months. The jurors were selected at the beginning of June.

Several news organizations wanted the jurors’ names so they could investigate and run stories on them. The District judge feared releasing their names would undermine impartiality and discourage others from serving in the future. The District judge also worried the jurors would be bombarded by e-mails and other communication during the trial if their names were released. He had been contacted several times about the case, even by a random person from off the street.

Sequestering jurors would probably solve the problem of unwanted contact, but is it fair to sequester people for months?

The District judge decided to not to release jurors’ names without evidence or holding a hearing. To complicate matters, he promised the seated jurors their names wouldn’t be released until after the trial ended. The press argued it’s a First Amendment issue – the right to access.

Instead of ruling on the matter, the 7th Circuit ordered the District judge to hold proceedings consistent with the opinion, and to keep the names confidential until a decision has been made.

When should a judge make the decision to keep jurors’ names from the public? Should jurors involved in high-profile cases remain anonymous until the end, always, or never?

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT