2011.07.07 Media's Motion for Release of Juror Names

[Roze]

A "booker" books guests for media shows.

Crap. I was hoping it was a bookie trying to influence the outcome of the trial. Thanks Teh.

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

I think he should release their names. He shouldn't even think twice about it. They certainly didn't think about what they did.

Oh yeah, AND it is the law.

My heart agrees with you Softail - but I do think there needs to be a balance and HHJPs concerns are founded. They did a very poor job and should be recognized for it - but I must stop short of endangering their lives or the lives of their loved ones.

I believe it will all be rendered moot anyway - the "media" (at least those HHJP expressed his disdain about) will have all the information in a trice. Watch and see.

But it was fun watching good lawyers today!

 

[yolorado]

Then I will never serve, EVER! As one poster on another board once said, the best way to get out of jury duty is walk in to court with a rope in your hand and say "where's the defendant"? :floorlaugh:

So much for civic duty!!!!!!!!!!!! Count me out.

Ha, ha, ha, but if I were Queen, that wouldn't necessarily get you out of jury service. If I needed a jury in my realm, I'd give people two outs for two times, no questions asked, and then they'd have to come in to the selection process by at least the third date proposed. If I needed 15, I'd put 40 names in the pot. Judge, and lawyers could talk to everyone for 2 hours max, perhaps eliminate a couple a piece they really didn't want, there might be a few outs for jurors in extreme need of escape. I'd let the group get whittled down to no less than 30. Then, it would be everybody in the pool and draw 15 numbers. THAT would be the jury. No sequestration. No change of venue. Everybody has to serve. Not many excuses. You're too important for your business to survive without you.... Too bad, sounds like you badly need a contingency plan....Make one now. Streamline the jury selection process and trial process to limit the time and financial commitments required of jurors. Limit the sidebars to, oh about...none. If you're a lawyer aren't ready for trial once the jury is seated, oh well, guess you should have been. Jurors would be paid handsomely to defray their inconvenience and to allay financial hardship. We need some chances. Right now, the process we're using comes up with too many nonsensical results.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Okay, here's another question while we're at it. Why can't Casey's psych exams now be released (found NG and all). They were sealed by the court. Why aren't the jurors names sealed by the court?

Riddle me that. :banghead:

Because I guess the law states they can be sealed.
If I had to guess, it's because it's medical.

But, the law states juror info is public knowledge.

 

[Chablis]

I dont understand what can be done? Changing the law takes years sometimes. 7 days and thats it, but i predict less. I give it till monday and more names are gonna be released or by the time Casey is free.

I think something will be done. JMO

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Would love to read it, let me know if you find it. It was MA I think?

It was California

Fox News sued to get the names of the jurors in the case so that we could ask them what swayed their decision. But the court ruled against us -- the names will remain sealed. So Americans will not be able to find out how Avila's acquittal came about.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=15264

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

I pray to God this doesn't happen, can you imagine all the jurors afraid to vote guilty or not guilty based on public and media feelings? could make the whole system a sham imo

1. happens everyday

2. it already is a sham. (sorry, I think this event just really has highlighted how ludicrous our system has become - and who is responsible for that )

 

[JimEverett]

I am not so sure the law is so settled.
If you read the motion - unless I completely missed it - there is no cite to a Florida statute stating the names must be released.

There is a cite to a supreme court case where the conclusion drawn is that juror information generally should not be kept confidential (paragraph 5).
And another cite from a lower Florida court that states any closure order must be lifted as soons as the reasons necessating closure are no longer valid (paragraph 7). Safety reasons could, presumably, last till each juror is dead, or perhaps even longer.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

The names should be released. We should have the right to ask questions of our unelected representatives in the legal system.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I really wish we had yesterday's thread.
The info was there.

 

[dunlurken]

I am not so sure the law is so settled.
If you read the motion - unless I completely missed it - there is no cite to a Florida statute stating the names must be released.

There is a cite to a supreme court case where the conclusion drawn is that juror information generally should not be kept confidential (paragraph 5).
And another cite from a lower Florida court that states any closure order must be lifted as soons as the reasons necessating closure are no longer valid (paragraph 7). Safety reasons could, presumably, last till each juror is dead, or perhaps even longer.

Thank you. Sigh of relief here. :seeya:

 

[Flossie JMO]

I am not so sure the law is so settled.
If you read the motion - unless I completely missed it - there is no cite to a Florida statute stating the names must be released.

There is a cite to a supreme court case where the conclusion drawn is that juror information generally should not be kept confidential (paragraph 5).
And another cite from a lower Florida court that states any closure order must be lifted as soons as the reasons necessating closure are no longer valid (paragraph 7). Safety reasons could, presumably, last till each juror is dead, or perhaps even longer.

Very interesting imo

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I am not so sure the law is so settled.
If you read the motion - unless I completely missed it - there is no cite to a Florida statute stating the names must be released.

There is a cite to a supreme court case where the conclusion drawn is that juror information generally should not be kept confidential (paragraph 5).
And another cite from a lower Florida court that states any closure order must be lifted as soons as the reasons necessating closure are no longer valid (paragraph 7). Safety reasons could, presumably, last till each juror is dead, or perhaps even longer.

From what I found yesterday, and linked... The names must be released.

 

[Miss Anarchy]

If you look at the motion the news companies filed, they reference the Florida Constitution Article 1 section 24, in it. That is probably where the law is.

 

[Miss Anarchy]

Because I guess the law states they can be sealed.
If I had to guess, it's because it's medical.

But, the law states juror info is public knowledge.

Medical records cannot be released without the person's permission due to FEDERAL HIPPA laws.

 

[dunlurken]

If you look at the motion the news companies filed, they reference the Florida Constitution Article 1 section 24, in it. That is probably where the law is.

Well, it sounds like the jurors are safe for quite some time then. This would have to go the U.S. Supreme Court, not the state of Fla. I'd be filing an appeal in a NY minute if my name were released. Or if the State of Fla notified me my name was going to be released.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

If you look at the motion the news companies filed, they reference the Florida Constitution Article 1 section 24, in it. That is probably where the law is.

http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/docs/c/const/const01.htm

SECTION 22. Trial by jury.–The right of trial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate. The qualifications and the number of jurors, not fewer than six, shall be fixed by law.

SECTION 23. Right of privacy.–Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.

SECTION 24. Access to public records and meetings.–

(a) Every person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf, except with respect to records exempted pursuant to this section or specifically made confidential by this Constitution. This section specifically includes the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and each agency or department created thereunder; counties, municipalities, and districts; and each constitutional officer, board, and commission, or entity created pursuant to law or this Constitution.

(b) All meetings of any collegial public body of the executive branch of state government or of any collegial public body of a county, municipality, school district, or special district, at which official acts are to be taken or at which public business of such body is to be transacted or discussed, shall be open and noticed to the public and meetings of the legislature shall be open and noticed as provided in Article III, Section 4(e), except with respect to meetings exempted pursuant to this section or specifically closed by this Constitution.

(c) This section shall be self-executing. The legislature, however, may provide by general law for the exemption of records from the requirements of subsection (a) and the exemption of meetings from the requirements of subsection (b), provided that such law shall state with specificity the public necessity justifying the exemption and shall be no broader than necessary to accomplish the stated purpose of the law. The legislature shall enact laws governing the enforcement of this section, including the maintenance, control, destruction, disposal, and disposition of records made public by this section, except that each house of the legislature may adopt rules governing the enforcement of this section in relation to records of the legislative branch. Laws enacted pursuant to this subsection shall contain only exemptions from the requirements of subsections (a) or (b) and provisions governing the enforcement of this section, and shall relate to one subject.

(d) All laws that are in effect on July 1, 1993 that limit public access to records or meetings shall remain in force, and such laws apply to records of the legislative and judicial branches, until they are repealed. Rules of court that are in effect on the date of adoption of this section that limit access to records shall remain in effect until they are repealed.

 

[JimEverett]

From what I found yesterday, and linked... The names must be released.

I wish I would have seen that.

I just find it odd that attorneys for the biggest news organization in the state would not cite to some sort of authority that definitively says they must be published - instead sourcing the Florida Supreme Court that states names should be published in general.

 

[Chablis]

Can he delay it for 100 years?

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Well, it sounds like the jurors are safe for quite some time then. This would have to go the U.S. Supreme Court, not the state of Fla. I'd be filing an appeal in a NY minute if my name were released. Or if the State of Fla notified me my name was going to be released.

How do you figure that?