Does Juror Safety Outweigh the Need for Trial Transparency?

 

Juror Anonymity: The Pros and the Cons

            Juror anonymity has been a growing trend among courts in the United States for years now. This is partly due to concerns regarding juror safety, which is greatly limited by the ever-increasing availability to information through social media and internet databases. Perhaps courts are correct in maintaining such secrecy in that portion of a trial, but there is certainly no unanimity with respect to opinions surrounding juror anonymity. Indeed, many trial lawyers have expressed fear that such secrecy could “undermine the idea of an open and accountable society.” With that sentiment in mind, it is prudent to address the pros and cons of keeping jurors’ identities from the public—especially in more high-profile cases.

            Typically, names and identities of jurors are made public once a trial has completed; however, there are exceptions that may delay the release of that information. Arguing Constitutional concerns, opponents of concealing juror information maintain such anonymity would undermine the “right to a fair trial.” After all, the Supreme Court ruled, in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, that access to trials was a Constitutional right to access of information. But, even with the extension of that access into voir dire questioning and pre-trial hearings, the First Amendment protections are not absolute. Following the Press-Enterprise II opinion, the Supreme Court articulated a two-part “experience and logic test” for determining the proper limitation to such access. Although that two-part test was established for pre-trial decisions regarding access to the court proceedings, the argument today is that such a test should be extended to the entire process—which would include juror anonymity throughout the trial and beyond.

High-Profile Cases Require both Secrecy and Transparency…

            It should come as no surprise that juror information is restricted in higher profile cases. For example, in the Derek Chauvin trial, the jurors’ identities have yet to be released, despite the overarching idea that trials should be open and public. Many other high-profile cases have seen juror identities withheld for long after the trial has been completed. Other cases that have seen jurors’ identities withheld for lengthy periods of time have been the sex trafficking trial of R. Kelly, El Chapo’s trial, and Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial. None of the juror names have been released following any of those verdicts. Indeed, juror safety is a great concern and the primary reason for withholding juror identification.

Safety, Shmafety: To Some, Access to Information Outweighs the Need for Anonymity

            Despite that safety concern, members of the press, as well as members of the legal community continue to lobby for juror information to be made available immediately. Those that oppose juror anonymity do so for arguably the same reason: they each want transparency in the judicial process. When the jurors’ identities remain hidden from the public, there is no accountability on the part of the court. This means that an anonymous jury could produce a verdict that was deliberated by a homogenous group of jurors, which would go unchecked as a result of public ignorance. An additional problem with juror anonymity is that the jury pool could very well be tainted simply by the juror’s knowledge of their being made anonymous players of the trial process.

Conclusion: Juror Safety Should Continue to Be Just as Important as Trial Transparency

            What is the answer, then? Do courts allow for secrecy, based on the existing logic of that two-part test? Or must courts allow for juror information to be made public, in order to maintain the optimal transparency of the judicial process?

            While there is much difficulty surrounding those particular questions, they certainly pose something that courts should afford a fair amount of time in trying to answer. Maybe more rigorous voir dire processes should be required, prior to selecting an anonymous jury. Gathering that information would benefit unsealed records, when they do become public, while maintaining anonymity until the court decides otherwise.

            Or maybe there is some other way. Regardless, balancing juror safety with the optics of judicial impropriety creates an incredibly fine line. Perhaps the answer is already there, and the outcries for change are nothing more than unanswerable queries. In any case, courts across the country must continue to put juror safety first without sacrificing the sanctity of our judicial process—however that may be done.