Friday, October 30, 2009
Editorial: Jurors won't be anonymous
No secrecy in public trials except in extreme circumstances.
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Lawmakers last year granted judges the discretion to seal personal information about jurors if -- and only if -- there is good cause to think there is a likelihood for jury tampering or for harm to come to a juror.
The General Assembly directed the Supreme Court to write rules for the protection of personal information.
A few judges jumped the gun in Virginia Beach, routinely keeping the names of all jurors secret. Then the Advisory Committee on Rules of the Court, which proposes and recommends rule changes to the Supreme Court, followed suit.
The committee proposed sealing all information about all jurors in all trials -- regardless of whether there were credible threats of harm or tampering. The rationale was that if only select cases were granted secrecy, jurors might view the defendant in such a case as dangerous and thereby think him guilty.
The committee published the new rule in May and met immediate and strong resistance from the Virginia Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, the Virginia Press Association, the Virginia Coalition for Open Government and the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia. The ACLU threatened to file suit, and the other organizations noted courts repeatedly rule that trials must be open and transparent.
If jurors' identities were sealed, then part of the judicial system would be closed off, allowing unintended harm to seep in.
Besides, granting blanket anonymity doesn't work. In small jurisdictions, where everyone knows each other, it is ludicrous. In larger ones, nothing prevents someone from stalking a juror on the way home from the courthouse to determine her identity.
The advisory committee saw the error of its way and has rewritten the rule to mirror what lawmakers intended. The draft revision will not be acted upon until May. It should find easier passage.
