Supreme Court's juror anonymity proposal
Virginia passed a law in 2008 that allows courts to close access to juror lists upon a showing of good cause (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+19.2-263.3). The bill was originally introduced in 2007, sponsored by Del. Morgan Griffith (R-Salem), but was sent to the Crime Commission for study. Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas) carried the bill in 2008 and made clear during committee sessions that his aim was to protect jurors in situations where there may be retaliation, especially in gang trials.
A story last month in the Virginian-Pilot, however, reported that Virginia Beach courts have taken the opportunity to close access to juror lists is ALL cases. (http://hamptonroads.com/node/509317).
And, because the legislation also directs the Supreme Court to promulgate further rules on the protection of juror information, the court's advisory committee on court rules has issued a proposed rule, which will be open for public comment through Sept. 1.
The rule is no friend to the public's (and defendant's) right to a public trial: providing for automatic numbering of jurors so names won't be used in open court; prohibiting sharing of juror information sheets and subsequent sealing of them; and limited possible disclosure of information -- only upon motion for good cause to those with "legitimate interest."
UPDATE, 7/8/09
At its June 25, 2009, board meeting, the board of directors for the Virginia Coalition for Open Government resolved to oppose the Virginia Supreme Court’s proposal to conceal the identity of jurors in criminal cases from public view.
There are U.S. Supreme Court cases (not the least of which originated from Virginia) that say information about jurors is presumptively public. These cases say that juror information can be shielded, but only if a judge makes specific justifications on the records (for things like possible juror tampering or retaliation).
As written, the Virginia Supreme Court’s proposal goes in quite the opposite direction. It would require judges to close off juror information -- names, addresses, occupations, and answers to juror-screening questions -- in every case to every person, except for the judges and attorneys. In one part of the rule, the court can even order the attorney not to share the information with his client, to not make copies, and to return any juror records to the court to seal away from prying eyes.
Each juror has an awesome job before him or her when a trial begins. It is understandable why some may feel apprehensive about what consequences may befall them for fulfilling their civic duty. But trials are constitutionally guaranteed public events, and the defendant has a constitutional right to a jury or his peers, whereas anonymous jurors can dispense anonymous justice, without regard to the evidence at hand.
The public must have a mechanism to monitor the judicial system. The court’s proposal interferes with this mechanism, and VCOG urges the court to reconsider the rule as currently written.
A story last month in the Virginian-Pilot, however, reported that Virginia Beach courts have taken the opportunity to close access to juror lists is ALL cases. (http://hamptonroads.com/node/509317).
And, because the legislation also directs the Supreme Court to promulgate further rules on the protection of juror information, the court's advisory committee on court rules has issued a proposed rule, which will be open for public comment through Sept. 1.
The rule is no friend to the public's (and defendant's) right to a public trial: providing for automatic numbering of jurors so names won't be used in open court; prohibiting sharing of juror information sheets and subsequent sealing of them; and limited possible disclosure of information -- only upon motion for good cause to those with "legitimate interest."
UPDATE, 7/8/09
At its June 25, 2009, board meeting, the board of directors for the Virginia Coalition for Open Government resolved to oppose the Virginia Supreme Court’s proposal to conceal the identity of jurors in criminal cases from public view.
There are U.S. Supreme Court cases (not the least of which originated from Virginia) that say information about jurors is presumptively public. These cases say that juror information can be shielded, but only if a judge makes specific justifications on the records (for things like possible juror tampering or retaliation).
As written, the Virginia Supreme Court’s proposal goes in quite the opposite direction. It would require judges to close off juror information -- names, addresses, occupations, and answers to juror-screening questions -- in every case to every person, except for the judges and attorneys. In one part of the rule, the court can even order the attorney not to share the information with his client, to not make copies, and to return any juror records to the court to seal away from prying eyes.
Each juror has an awesome job before him or her when a trial begins. It is understandable why some may feel apprehensive about what consequences may befall them for fulfilling their civic duty. But trials are constitutionally guaranteed public events, and the defendant has a constitutional right to a jury or his peers, whereas anonymous jurors can dispense anonymous justice, without regard to the evidence at hand.
The public must have a mechanism to monitor the judicial system. The court’s proposal interferes with this mechanism, and VCOG urges the court to reconsider the rule as currently written.
Add new comment