The Role of Infamy in Jury Duty

 Courts Claim Juror Names are the Media’s Constitutional Right

The media is quick to request identification of jurors sitting on high-profile cases after a verdict is released. Every publication and outlet wants the first comment on how the jury deliberated, what evidence swayed them, and the personal opinions of the jury members. Some of the states’ highest courts agree with the sentiment that the media should have access to any jury member so journalists might parse out those willing to “spill the beans,” expanding upon the Supreme Court ruling in Nixon v. Warner Communications that recognized “a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents.” In 2015, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that it is mandatory for a list of jurors in criminal cases to become part of the public record, based upon the critical nature of “the public's long-term interest in maintaining an open judicial process, as embodied in the United States Constitution and Massachusetts common law.” The court did not consider there to be good cause to privatize the jurors’ names where the basis for doing so would be only an “aversion to exposing jurors to press interviews and the personal preferences of the jurors.” Earlier, in Commonwealth v. Long, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that it was a constitutional right of the press to access personal contact information for jury members in a criminal trial.

Should Jurors Be Entitled to More Privacy?

Even before the names of the jurors in the highly-broadcast Bill Cosby sexual assault trial were released in 2018, half of the individuals were contacted by media outlets at their home addresses and on their cell phones. Invasive efforts to get to jurors only increased once their names were publicly released. The Pennsylvania judge on Cosby’s case was reluctant to give out personal information on the jurors, and waited to do so for a few weeks post-verdict in order to give them some quiet time at home with their families before the media onslaught. Ultimately, though, he was bound by the Commonwealth v. Long decision.

The jurors on the Cosby trial were merely pestered for comment, but the general public can be even more dogged than the press in pursuing juries. In 2011, harsh public sentiment towards defendant Casey Anthony, thought by many to have murdered her young daughter, was redirected at the jury. People picketed at the Florida courthouse, holding signs with disparaging statements like “Somewhere a Village is Missing 12 Idiots.” Because the jurors’ identities were public knowledge, this harassment continued beyond the courthouse steps. Once juror was forced to move out of state to avoid the unyielding hatred.

There May be a Compromise

While it is certainly true that the jury process should “never go unscrutinized,” jurors should not be harassed for completing their civic duty, nor can they be forced to speak to the press. Perhaps, then, a logical compromise was found in the lower court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Fujita before it was overturned. Judge Peter Lauriat noted that he would ask which of the jurors were “amenable” public comment, and then would only report those names. This method would allow transparency in the judicial process, but only as pertains to those wishing to make a public statement. Those jurors who value personal privacy and safety over comment would be left in peace.