2011.07.07 Media's Motion for Release of Juror Names

[SMK]

Well, I think this case should be classified as a special case, thats for sure.

Actually, recent US rulings have granted MORE privacy to jurors:

American Bar Association

Forum on Communications Law

The Public's Right of Access to Juror Information Loses More Ground

The rights of the press and the public to information about jurors, including their names and addresses, often clash with the right to a fair trial of criminal defendants and with the right to privacy of jurors.1

The pendulum has recently swung in the direction of affording greater weight to the privacy rights of jurors-at the expense of the public's right to monitor judicial proceedings.

pps.americanbar.org/forums/communication/comlawyer/winter00/zansberg.html

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Snipped.

Incorrect.

First, you assume that not releasing the jurors names is tantamount to secret trials. Not so.

Secondly, there are jurisdictions that have perfectly fair justice systems and don't release the jurors names. Florida, I suspect, is the exception rather than the rule in the US with their overly-broad "sunshine" laws. Certainly the UK does not publicise juror names and despite certain misgivings I have about our justice system it is not a "communist" or "nazi" regime with so-called "secret trials".

Thirdly, by effectively allowing the jurors to be hounded by the media and any dangerous, armed, nutjob dissatisified with the verdict will hamper rather than facilitate the ends of justice in future trials.

Bottom line is it's the law that the names are to be public. Should we just ignore the law because something bad might happen? Please. This silly hysteria about raving mobs waiting to kill and injure people is nonsense. There is no proof that anything like that will happen. Let's not label the public as irrational nutjobs when FCA is the criminal in this case.moo

 

[uklaw]

It's always been that way and it's no reason to keep jurors' identities a secret when they are required by law to be revealed. HHJP needs to stop overruling the law and do the right thing.moo

BBM

Interestingly enough, I doubt the Casey-haters would be saying that with respect to any ruling HHJP might have made unfavourable to the defense which was "overruling the law".

I bet you would all be over the moon if Judge Perry sentenced Casey to the max on any manslaughter or child abuse conviction that KC got because, as AZLawyer correctly put it, HHJP might have believed KC did murder Caylee. (Note: I am not criticizing AZLawyer here, it is quite likely that her commentary on WS Radio was a correct assessment of what would have happened had the jury convicted on the manslaughter and child abuse charges).

For HHJP to have done that would have been entirely improper because the sentencer is supposed to sentence a Defendant for the crimes which they have been convicted of not the ones which the sentencer believes the Defendant got acquitted of despite factual guilt.

What's more it is not clear that the law requires HHJP to release the jurors names or indeed allows him to do so. The U.S. Courts as a whole have given wide interpretation to the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. It could be argued that the jurors constitutional rights to, for example, privacy and safety, require that their names be withheld from the public.

In such circumstances, the court would be obliged by law to withhold the names since the U.S. Supreme Court has held ever since 1803 that courts are to disregard legislation which is irreconcilable with the US Constitution (see: Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)). The reasoning being that the U.S. constitution trumps state legislation.

In a case such as this where jurors are receiving threats against there lives and safety, and the release of their names would involve an unwarranted intrusion into their privacy, I cannot agree that it would be the "right thing" to release the jurors' names.

 

[Chablis]

Bottom line is it's the law that the names are to be public. Should we just ignore the law because something bad might happen? Please. This silly hysteria about raving mobs waiting to kill and injure people is nonsense. There is no proof that anything like that will happen. Let's not label the public as irrational nutjobs when FCA is the criminal in this case.moo

There were people outside of the trial saying, they should just kill her already. I saw this smug woman on TV just today saying she wants justice for Caylee and someone will take care of the rest, I knew exactly what she meant. There are weird people out there, Lennon was loved and killed, or is it most want her to get assassinated and then say, ok change the law. I would bet the house on the latter. Its sick.

 

[SMK]

BBM

Interestingly enough, I doubt the Casey-haters would be saying that with respect to any ruling HHJP might have made unfavourable to the defense which was "overruling the law".

I bet you would all be over the moon if Judge Perry sentenced Casey to the max on any manslaughter or child abuse conviction that KC got because, as AZLawyer correctly put it, HHJP might have believed KC did murder Caylee. (Note: I am not criticizing AZLawyer here, it is quite likely that her commentary on WS Radio was a correct assessment of what would have happened had the jury convicted on the manslaughter and child abuse charges).

For HHJP to have done that would have been entirely improper because the sentencer is supposed to sentence a Defendant for the crimes which they have been convicted of not the ones which the sentencer believes the Defendant got acquitted of despite factual guilt.

What's more it is not clear that the law requires HHJP to release the jurors names or indeed allows him to do so. The U.S. Courts as a whole have given wide interpretation to the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. It could be argued that the jurors constitutional rights to, for example, privacy and safety, require that their names be withheld from the public.

In such circumstances, the court would be obliged by law to withhold the names since the U.S. Supreme Court has held ever since 1803 that courts are to disregard legislation which is irreconcilable with the US Constitution (see: Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)). The reasoning being that the U.S. constitution trumps state legislation.

In a case such as this where jurors are receiving threats against there lives and safety, and the release of their names would involve an unwarranted intrusion into their privacy, I cannot agree that it would be the "right thing" to release the jurors' names.

That sums it up, for sure. I doubt any good will come from releasing the jurors' names. It sure will not bring Caylee back, nor will it bring her further justice.

 

[cluciano63]

There were people outside of the trial saying, they should just kill her already. I saw this smug woman on TV just today saying she wants justice for Caylee and someone will take care of the rest, I knew exactly what she meant. There are weird people out there, Lennon was loved and killed, or is it most want her to get assassinated and then say, ok change the law. I would bet the house on the latter. Its sick.

I've seen a number of posts here at WS saying they wouldn't mind if someone else did it...that is very scary to me. I do mind if someone goes out and kills a person who has been acquitted, but maybe that is just me.

 

[Italy]

BBM

Interestingly enough, I doubt the Casey-haters would be saying that with respect to any ruling HHJP might have made unfavourable to the defense which was "overruling the law".

I bet you would all be over the moon if Judge Perry sentenced Casey to the max on any manslaughter or child abuse conviction that KC got because, as AZLawyer correctly put it, HHJP might have believed KC did murder Caylee. (Note: I am not criticizing AZLawyer here, it is quite likely that her commentary on WS Radio was a correct assessment of what would have happened had the jury convicted on the manslaughter and child abuse charges).

For HHJP to have done that would have been entirely improper because the sentencer is supposed to sentence a Defendant for the crimes which they have been convicted of not the ones which the sentencer believes the Defendant got acquitted of despite factual guilt.

What's more it is not clear that the law requires HHJP to release the jurors names or indeed allows him to do so. The U.S. Courts as a whole have given wide interpretation to the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. It could be argued that the jurors constitutional rights to, for example, privacy and safety, require that their names be withheld from the public.

In such circumstances, the court would be obliged by law to withhold the names since the U.S. Supreme Court has held ever since 1803 that courts are to disregard legislation which is irreconcilable with the US Constitution (see: Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)). The reasoning being that the U.S. constitution trumps state legislation.

In a case such as this where jurors are receiving threats against there lives and safety, and the release of their names would involve an unwarranted intrusion into their privacy, I cannot agree that it would be the "right thing" to release the jurors' names.

I submit that Florida Sunshine law does mandate that the names be released in a "timely fashion". I believe that Judge Perry has wide latitude as to what that means. I can't imagine this group of jurors will want to write new law by challenging the release -- but we will see.

Also, I think an argument could be made that by speaking out on a public forum (TV, interviews), the privacy of the group has been pierced albeit not by every member of the jury.

In any event, an interesting matter and I (and I am sure others) appreciate your thoughts and comments.

 

[SMK]

I've seen a number of posts here at WS saying they wouldn't mind if someone else did it...that is very scary to me. I do mind if someone goes out and kills a person who has been acquitted, but maybe that is just me.

No, it is not just you. It is the rule of law to respect a jury's decision, though we may fully disagree with it. It is against WS terms of service to encourage violence against a defendant. I understand people are angry. They need to put it toward positive things, like honoring Caylee's memory by working for the thousands of little ones who go missing each year.

 

[kgeaux]

How about a law that if someone threatens a juror or their family or contacts them in any way, gets a automatic year in jail or a million dollar fine. I think thats the better idea.

I'm having a little problem with your usage of the word "automatic!" Do you mean that the penalty for threatening a juror would be what you suggest in every jurisdiction?

Jurors names are not ordinarily published in the newspapers, however, they are available if someone wants to look for them. Withholding them is tantamount to having "secret" juries and that is not what is done in this country.

There really is no reason for Judge Perry to deviate from the norm. I seriously doubt that any of these people would be endangered by the public at large. Casey Anthony is the target of the wrath out there. Most of these jurors are probably mortified by their asinine verdict and would like for no one to know their involvement. C'est la vie.

Respectfully, not publishing the jurors names isn't at all like having secret juries, IMO. The prosecution, the defense, the defendant and the officers of the court all know who the jurors were. Nothing secret about them at all, not to anyone that matters.

The reason Judge Perry gave to deviate from the norm (if indeed the norm is to publish the names of jurors after every trial) is that the jurors could be in physical danger from the public. There are enough people making angry remarks about the jurors that I believe JP's assessment is correct.

There were people outside of the trial saying, they should just kill her already. I saw this smug woman on TV just today saying she wants justice for Caylee and someone will take care of the rest, I knew exactly what she meant. There are weird people out there, Lennon was loved and killed, or is it most want her to get assassinated and then say, ok change the law. I would bet the house on the latter. Its sick.

I agree. I think most people wouldn't give a flying fig if someone killed Casey. In this case, some of the people out there seem to believe two wrongs make a right.

I am even concerned that many of those who are upset by the judge's temporary delay in releasing the names of the jurors is because of what they want to say and do directly to the jurors.

 

[kgeaux]

I've seen a number of posts here at WS saying they wouldn't mind if someone else did it...that is very scary to me. I do mind if someone goes out and kills a person who has been acquitted, but maybe that is just me.

It is shocking to me how many people are saying just what you've noted. It is scary. There is something deeply, deeply wrong with anyone thinking that ANY murder is ok.

It is not just you. Me, too.

 

[Chablis]

I'm having a little problem with your usage of the word "automatic!" Do you mean that the penalty for threatening a juror would be what you suggest in every jurisdiction?

No, I guess we would have to establish that if a case is "High Profile" meaning its live on TV, there should be special protection for them. This has just showed me the worst in people. I cant even wrap my mind around anyone saying Casey is a murderer and killed someone, so its ok for someone to go take care of her and people will dance over the victory, its so bizarre.

 

[everyoneneedsavoice]

Why the names of the Casey Anthony jurors are important to you

Leave the jurors alone.

In the frenzied aftermath of Casey Anthony's not guilty verdict, you heard it again and again: Why should the media have the right to know who jurors are, even in a case unlike any other?

Normally when a trial is over, a judge thanks the jurors for their service (six weeks of it, in this case) and tells them they are normal folk again, free to talk about it or not, their choice. But Circuit Judge Belvin Perry also took the unusual move of keeping jurors' names sealed, citing people's unhappiness with their verdict.

So why do we need to know the jurors' names? First off, because everyone should always want government's hands where we can see them.

When any part of our system does business in secret — spending, hiring, even trying court cases — you can bet someone within that system will one day find a way to corrupt it, to get a little something for himself, because hey, who's watching?

Corners are cut, bribes taken and deals made in the dark. Imagine you could never discover that a juror was an old friend of the prosecutor or an ex-employee of the defense. Courthouse corruption does not exist only in John Grisham beach-reads.


http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts...y-anthony-jurors-are-important-to-you/1179536

 

[Chablis]

It is shocking to me how many people are saying just what you've noted. It is scary. There is something deeply, deeply wrong with anyone thinking that ANY murder is ok.

It is not just you. Me, too.

I mean its pretty bad when the media has had to like almost quell and plead to their viewers to not do something rash! Imo, I think a lot of rage comes not because Casey is free, its that some were wrong and just cant deal with it in a healthy way. Thats why I think if any laws come out of this it should be to protect juries from online and real threats.

 

[Nova24]

Most of the names will get out there eventually. The jurors will have neighbors, employers. etc. who will want to make their buck as well. Give it time. It will eventually happen. I would also think a few more jurors will come forward in time. I could even see a book or two down the line.

 

[grandmaj]

Snipped.

Incorrect.

First, you assume that not releasing the jurors names is tantamount to secret trials. Not so.

Secondly, there are jurisdictions that have perfectly fair justice systems and don't release the jurors names. Florida, I suspect, is the exception rather than the rule in the US with their overly-broad "sunshine" laws. Certainly the UK does not publicise juror names and despite certain misgivings I have about our justice system it is not a "communist" or "nazi" regime with so-called "secret trials".

Thirdly, by effectively allowing the jurors to be hounded by the media and any dangerous, armed, nutjob dissatisified with the verdict will hamper rather than facilitate the ends of justice in future trials.

BBM not so. In the trial of former Governor Blagojevich the juror names were released the day after the verdict. In the case of Kerrigan in Boston the juror names were released. In the Barry Bonds case the names of the jurors were released. The names of the Scott Peterson Jurors were released after a short while. The names of the Neil Entwistle jury were released.

Only in mobster type situation are jurors names with-held after trial. I recently served on a felony case and my name was part of the public record.

No one in a criminal trial making such a major decision should have a right to total privacy. It is the open concept of law and the courts here in the United States and I personally would fight to maintain the integrity of that process. When jurors names begin to be with-held then it opens the door to corruption and possible mis-use of the jury's official duties.

This is America and one of the reasons for the Declaration of Independence was that the King of England refused in some cases to allow for colonists to have "trial by Jury" and attempted to maintain a tyrannical hold on the colonists. Of course we also had that little Tea Party over unfair taxes too.

Our system of government is run by "We the People" and we the people ensure that we are electing people who have the same values that we hold dear. Open, public and accessible government and judicial systems is the only way we can ensure the same rights for all.

 

[Chablis]

BBM not so. In the trial of former Governor Blagojevich the juror names were released the day after the verdict. In the case of Kerrigan in Boston the juror names were released. In the Barry Bonds case the names of the jurors were released. The names of the Scott Peterson Jurors were released after a short while. The names of the Neil Entwistle jury were released.

Yeah, but who wanted to kill Blago or kill someone over Kerrigan or Bonds? Scott and Neil were in prison so everyone was happy. This is a very special circumstances case that we have never seen, imo.

 

[kgeaux]

No, I guess we would have to establish that if a case is "High Profile" meaning its live on TV, there should be special protection for them. This has just showed me the worst in people. I cant even wrap my mind around anyone saying Casey is a murderer and killed someone, so its ok for someone to go take care of her and people will dance over the victory, its so bizarre.

Thank you for responding. So you're suggesting that we have a law similar to the laws that make attacking a police officer a more serious crime than attacking a civilian.

Can't wrap my mind around a lot of the attitudes out there, either!

 

[grandmaj]

No one has a right to inflict pain, injury or death on another person. Not the accused Casey Anthony and not anyone who decides to avenge justice on their own accord. That is what the laws, the police force and the courts are for to sort these things out and enforce equal rights under the law. But, secretive government is what makes for bad politics and decisions. NO one group of people should have different rights and privileges than others under our system of justice.

I think when we start making exceptions then it opens the door wide for us to see excuses rather than integrity in our governmental units.

 

[grandmaj]

Yeah, but who wanted to kill Blago or kill someone over Kerrigan or Bonds? Scott and Neil were in prison so everyone was happy. This is a very special circumstances case that we have never seen, imo.

No one wanted to kill Blago but this case was a corruption case on a very high level and could have exposed more than Blago. When you start dealing with political corruption there are people on the fringes that may have wanted to harm the jurors. Not saying it as fact but it might be assumed.

I have yet to see in publication one real threat posed toward any of the jurors. I'd be the first to say give them protection.

Public sentiment and disappointment is one thing. That is our right under the Constitution to speak out when we feel we see injustice.

But are there real threats ?

 

[Chablis]

No one wanted to kill Blago but this case was a corruption case on a very high level and could have exposed more than Blago. When you start dealing with political corruption there are people on the fringes that may have wanted to harm the jurors. Not saying it as fact but it might be assumed.

I have yet to see in publication one real threat posed toward any of the jurors. I'd be the first to say give them protection.

Public sentiment and disappointment is one thing. That is our right under the Constitution to speak out when we feel we see injustice.

But are there real threats ?

Well, I do think there has been because if you remember, when they held the hearing JBP kept saying, "Filet them open and throw them to piranhas" he was reading off something, so I took it that someone had threatened the jury with this, or he read it somewhere online and was trying to make a point of the hostile environment, I didn't think he was dong it for dramatics. And he still hasn't ruled yet.