Names of Jurors just Released

[Hope4More]

LG- no, I don't think sealing juror names is putting individuals' interests first. Rather, I think doing so is protecting the larger good, which is the viability and integrity of the jury system itself.

Adding- IMO, jurors' obligations are primarily, as much as it may cause us all pain in cases like this, to the DEFENDANT. They're supposed to examine and judge the state's accusations against the defendant, and to the defendant's response to those allegations via her DT. Nothing more. IMO, juries' obligations to the public end with their verdict.

I'm sickened by OCA's jury precisely because I don't believe they met either their duty to the victim, Caylee Marie Anthony, or to the public. But, that doesn't mean I think any of us are entitled to have them confronted as individuals. They failed. Caylee did not get justice. And I suspect that every juror now knows they let a murderer free, no matter how they console themselves they did what they could.

 

[LambChop]

Eh, not exactly. You can say it will be a hardship for you, but that doesn't automatically excuse you from jury duty. Not being excused from jury duty doesn't always equal wanting to be on the jury. It means that your stated reason and/or excuse was not accepted by the court, for whatever reason.

For example, during the voir dire I sat in on in September, we had three people who stated that jury duty would be a hardship for them because of their jobs. They excused two, but kept the third person. I don't know whether he was really happy to serve or not - but I can guess he didn't really want to be there for it, given his stated hardship during voir dire. I don't think you can extrapolate being seated as a juror as wanting to be on a jury.

No, but it certainly helped those who claimed hardship that they were being sequestered and were predicted to be away from home for 2 months. That can be both a financial hardship and emotional one, too, if you have small children. I watched jury selection and they were all pretty clear on not having a problem serving.

I assumed when I was picked for a jury that there was no way they would pick me based on my background information and they did pick me. So you just never know. But HHJP did excuse those few who brought letters from their employers stating it would be too hard to do without their employees for two months. As far as this jury, they all seemed to want to be included in the process. At trial end though, all they "seemed" to have wanted to do was wash their hands of the whole matter. jmo

 

[LinTX]

The reason the jury members are known to the public is the same reason we have open trials. It's intended to be a guard against corruption of the courts. If the public knows the twelve are regular members of a community, then they also have a better shot at knowing whether or not they are aligned with, or bought by, the state or the defense. If secret juries are what you think you want, consider how that would affect you if you were on trial and your only crime was maybe being too critical of TPTB, or a powerful criminal in your community. Remember TPTB or the criminal can be those who have the power & money to not only buy LE and judges, they can also buy a jury. Is that who you want deciding your fate? An open jury is part of your insurance as a citizen. Yes it can be tough to be on one, but it's important that they are known to be 'us'.

One problem in our current system is that too few 'regular joes' are serving these days because it's so easy to get out of it. What results can sometimes be anything but a jury of your peers. But whoever they are, I'll honor them for serving because not being representative is not their fault. But after they accept the responsibility, what they do with it should be open to public opinion. We, as citizens, expect them to do the best job they can do - to follow the law and to judge based on the evidence presented because they represent the collective 'us'. And it's our right, maybe even our duty, to voice our opinions when they don't do that. The public's judgement of how well - or how poorly - they did their job is also part of ensuring fair trials. The juror is supposed to be a part of the community and knows he will return to that community once his service is done.

Back in the day, before cities became so populated, the idea was that the farmer that served stood shoulder to shoulder with his neighbor during and after the trial. He represented the members of the community that had been harmed by the crime being tried, so he was expected to represent them well, or to face them if he didn't. Today we don't personally know that farmer, and our 'shoulder to shoulder' might be electronic, but the principal of expecting him to represent us well still stands. Open trials and open juries are not easy on those who serve, but it's not supposed to be. It's what a citizen owes the system that affords him his right to a fair trial. Yes, that jurist also has the right to be safe in his community after his service, and we have laws to protect him if threatened or unduly harassed. He deserves that, we all do. But each of us faces our neighbors based on our actions in society, and protecting a juror from public censure would take away part of the incentive to represent his community well when serving. IMO.

 

[logicalgirl]

LG- no, I don't think sealing juror names is putting individuals' interests first. Rather, I think doing so is protecting the larger good, which is the integrity of the system itself.

I understand what you are saying - really I do. But for me any system that is sealed is at risk of losing it's integrity by that very act.

I'm not a particularly brave person - I don't appreciate having to be more watchful looking over my shoulder to see if anyone is following me or having threatening phone calls etc. But I think we may have only one or two opportunities to step up "to it" and do our own "share" to keep the freedoms we have in place.

And I think this is one of them. Expecting privacy in this world of ours is virtually impossible. Got an IPhone, or an ISP? There you are - the world knows who you are and where to find you. If you've got an IPhone, the world knows not only who you are but exactly where you are at this moment. While I would not ask to be a person who is in public service as a career - I'm very aware there is no such thing as privacy anymore.

 

[Hope4More]

LinX- your thoughtful post deserves a longer response, but for now.. sealing jurors' names is just not the same thing as a secret jury. In this case we saw all the evidence, every minute of the trial; the trial was open in every sense of the word.

Actual jury deliberations are not recorded, and are never part of the public record. Does that mean we already have secret juries? Nah. It just means that the system assumes juries will do the right thing, and with integrity.

In theory. In practice, as JA says, its more like a carp-shoot.

 

[logicalgirl]

The reason the jury members are known to the public is the same reason we have open trials. It's intended to be a guard against corruption of the courts. If the public knows the twelve are regular members of a community, then they also have a better shot at knowing whether or not they are aligned with, or bought by, the state or the defense. If secret juries are what you think you want, consider how that would affect you if you were on trial and your only crime was maybe being too critical of TPTB, or a powerful criminal in your community. Remember TPTB or the criminal can be those who have the power & money to not only buy LE and judges, they can also buy a jury. Is that who you want deciding your fate? An open jury is part of your insurance as a citizen. Yes it can be tough to be on one, but it's important that they are known to be 'us'.

One problem in our current system is that too few 'regular joes' are serving these days because it's so easy to get out of it. What results can sometimes be anything but a jury of your peers. But whoever they are, I'll honor them for serving because not being representative is not their fault. But after they accept the responsibility, what they do with it should be open to public opinion. We, as citizens, expect them to do the best job they can do - to follow the law and to judge based on the evidence presented because they represent the collective 'us'. And it's our right, maybe even our duty, to voice our opinions when they don't do that. The public's judgement of how well - or how poorly - they did their job is also part of ensuring fair trials. The juror is supposed to be a part of the community and knows he will return to that community once his service is done.

Back in the day, before cities became so populated, the idea was that the farmer that served stood shoulder to shoulder with his neighbor during and after the trial. He represented the members of the community that had been harmed by the crime being tried, so he was expected to represent them well, or to face them if he didn't. Today we don't personally know that farmer, and our 'shoulder to shoulder' might be electronic, but the principal of expecting him to represent us well still stands. Open trials and open juries are not easy on those who serve, but it's not supposed to be. It's what a citizen owes the system that affords him his right to a fair trial. Yes, that jurist also has the right to be safe in his community after his service, and we have laws to protect him if threatened or unduly harassed. He deserves that, we all do. But each of us faces our neighbors based on our actions in society, and protecting a juror from public censure would take away part of the incentive to represent his community well when serving. IMO.

Beautifully put LinTx and I wish I'd said what you said in the first place...:banghead:

Thank you! :tyou:

 

[LambChop]

LG- no, I don't think sealing juror names is putting individuals' interests first. Rather, I think doing so is protecting the larger good, which is the integrity of the system itself.

What if the jury found someone guilty and the foreman had a hidden agenda and was pretty much in control of the jury convincing them that the foreman was aware of personal information and the defendant was, in fact, guilty of the charges? Now this is cause for the jury members to report this person but what if they didn't (and it happens). If the names were not ever released the defendant might not be receiving a fair trial. This person could potentially influence the other jury members that he/she had irrefuitable evidence of this person guilt.

If the names were never released the public would never know this person did not receive a fair trial. Once the names are released if there were any issues with the jury members people might come forward and say, "Hey, this person was bragging in a bar a month before the trial that he knows who the real killer is." It's suppose to keep the jurors honest during voir dire.

If someone is going to come after you for your decision in court they have more information available to them to find out who you are and don't have to rely on the media. The defense had your name and address from day one. jmo

 

[Hope4More]

LG- I think we're framing the cost-benefits question differently.

I know privacy is dead, and woe to all of us for THAT! I just don't see the question as a privacy issue, or think that having names sealed means corruption or a trade-off of integrity for privacy.

Maybe I should ask- just what do you think having jurors' names released will accomplish? Why do you think the public is owed the names?

LinX and LG- the public HAS been holding OCA's jury accountable. Loudly, and continously, and rightfully so. And the jurors' community has also done that, as I recall, with family members and workplace colleagues and even restaurant owners making their displeasure known.

 

[Hope4More]

Mods- hope discussing this issue isn't going OT.

WS's- I enjoy a good debate, especially one so gentile and thoughtful. Looks like I'm in the minority on this one, but that's peachy keen with me. Bring it on.

 

[LambChop]

LinX- your thoughtful post deserves a longer response, but for now.. sealing jurors' names is just not the same thing as a secret jury. In this case we saw all the evidence, every minute of the trial; the trial was open in every sense of the word.

Actual jury deliberations are not recorded, and are never part of the public record. Does that mean we already have secret juries? Nah. It just means that the system assumes juries will do the right thing, and with integrity.

In theory. In practice, as JA says, its more like a carp-shoot.

The minute a jury member comes out of the deliberation's room and speaks to the press about what took place during deliberations, it's public knowledge. It's their choice to speak or not. They are actually helping other's understand the jury system by coming forward and speaking out. jmo

 

[Hope4More]

LambChop-The minute a jury member comes out of the deliberation's room and speaks to the press about what took place during deliberations, it's public knowledge. It's their choice to speak or not. They are actually helping other's understand the jury system by coming forward and speaking out.

I agree, completely, and am always grateful when jurors speak out about the whats and whys. As long as it is their choice to do so.

 

[Hope4More]

LambChop-What if the jury found someone guilty and the foreman had a hidden agenda and was pretty much in control of the jury convincing them that the foreman was aware of personal information and the defendant was, in fact, guilty of the charges? Now this is cause for the jury members to report this person but what if they didn't (and it happens). If the names were not ever released the defendant might not be receiving a fair trial. This person could potentially influence the other jury members that he/she had irrefuitable evidence of this person guilt.


I imagine every jury scenario we could think of, and worse, has happened in reality. No one ever said our jury system is perfect. It is just as imperfect as any individual or group of individuals serving on juries.

Call me an idealist, but I think it works pretty darn well most of the time and for most people. I think in fact that the shock and rage about OCA's NG verdict speaks to the jury system's success. We expected different because we EXPECTED the system to do it right.

 

[LambChop]

LambChop-The minute a jury member comes out of the deliberation's room and speaks to the press about what took place during deliberations, it's public knowledge. It's their choice to speak or not. They are actually helping other's understand the jury system by coming forward and speaking out.

I agree, completely, and am always grateful when jurors speak out about the whats and whys. As long as it is their choice to do so.

I don't think the media should hound them. If they wish to talk about it and the media makes them an offer that's good. If they don't want to talk, the media should leave them alone. It does not sound as if they are being hounded though. jmo

 

[AnaTeresa]

What if the jury found someone guilty and the foreman had a hidden agenda and was pretty much in control of the jury convincing them that the foreman was aware of personal information and the defendant was, in fact, guilty of the charges? Now this is cause for the jury members to report this person but what if they didn't (and it happens). If the names were not ever released the defendant might not be receiving a fair trial. This person could potentially influence the other jury members that he/she had irrefuitable evidence of this person guilt.

If the names were never released the public would never know this person did not receive a fair trial. Once the names are released if there were any issues with the jury members people might come forward and say, "Hey, this person was bragging in a bar a month before the trial that he knows who the real killer is." It's suppose to keep the jurors honest during voir dire.

If someone is going to come after you for your decision in court they have more information available to them to find out who you are and don't have to rely on the media. The defense had your name and address from day one. jmo

The jury is instructed to only rule on evidence presented in the courtroom. This is made very clear. One, if a jury member knew the defendant and/or had ties to the state, it would have been ferreted out in voir dire. The attorneys get the jury info sheets ahead of time in cases like that and run them through search engines. That ferrets out a lot.

Also, the jurors are stating in front of the other potential jurors that they have no ties. It would look incredibly fishy to the other jurors that this person lied in voir dire, but is now claiming outside knowledge. I doubt they would go along with it. Then you would also have to have this person angling to become the foreperson, and then somehow trying to exert their opinion.

Juries are not this complicated.

The murder trial I observed last month involved a foster parent accused of killing their foster child. The trial lasted three weeks. The jury returned a verdict after 2.5 hours, even though there was a ton of evidence. On its face, it looks like they didn't pay attention or wanted to leave. However, they took copious notes and chose to speak with the attorneys for the state and defense post-verdict. They gave thoughtful, articulate answers describing the deliberation process. This was in a more rural area, with some jurors that people would label as uneducated. They all thought through their opinions while discussing their verdict. Just because one person was emphatic on a point did not mean that they immediately flipped.

While I understand the need to keep juries open, the fact is, most do their job and do it well. Jury tampering and juror misconduct happens much less than people think it does, in my opinion. I'm torn on the issue of releasing names, but I don't think that releasing names really helps "prove" tampering or misconduct.

Has there ever been an instance where the release of juror names has lead to the discovery of tampering or misconduct? Or is this all conjecture?

 

[MsMacGyver]

Beach: I don't buy the "public's right to know" argument. Those performing their civic duty should have a right to confidentiality (if they so choose) and it should trump the " public's right to know".

I agree, and absolutely, actually. IMO, the public has no right to know the names of individuals serving on any jury, anywhere, for anything. And IMO it is wrong to put jurors and their families in potential jeopardy (real or imagined) for no compelling reasonl.
Jurors' safety, though, isn't for me the only reason to seal jurors' names. Also at stake is a larger principle. The jury system is predicated on the notion of jury as a GROUP of one's peers. Yes, individuals comprise the group, and yes each individual has a separate & unique responsibility during the process of deliberation, but only what the jury does and decides as a group is relevant.

Consider how judges address the jury when a verdict is reached. Juries are addressed as a single entity, a collective. Individual jurors can only be asked for a yes or no as it relates to the group's work.

Start down the media-driven path of making stars and villains out of individual jurors and what you will eventually up with in that jury room are individuals placing their own individual best interests over any other consideration.

What a travesty that would be, especially since it is avoidable. Seal jurors' names.

BBM

Just popped in and saw your post. I haven't read Beach post yet but I had to totally agree with bolded part of your post Hope4More...:seeya:

If you weigh the up and down side of this issue, here is my opinion.
On the one hand it may very well be true , the public does have the right to know the name of the jurors under the sunshine law. It is our right as Americans, full disclosure.

"But on the other hand"..(isn't there a song title like this?)....:innocent:

The jurors, as Americans...have a right to their privacy. Maybe as jurors they give up this right? Is this fair to them? The A trial is an example of how this can effect the jurors in a negative way. Can someone give me an example of a situation where giving up this right to privacy had a positive effect in the legal sense. For example has there ever been a case where jury tampering was discovered by the public?

The jurors are our last line of defense for justice..they have the last word. You could even argue the point that if we keep their information private, known only to the court system...not allow them to go public..this would eliminate the possibility of tempting a juror to become famous, make money from possible interviews, remove the temptation to appear on TV, post verdict interviews..this could possibly add to a just verdict?...:waitasec:

Interesting argument which at present, I find myself agreeing with keeping their info private..not being their choice..mandatory...jmo

 

[LambChop]

LambChop-What if the jury found someone guilty and the foreman had a hidden agenda and was pretty much in control of the jury convincing them that the foreman was aware of personal information and the defendant was, in fact, guilty of the charges? Now this is cause for the jury members to report this person but what if they didn't (and it happens). If the names were not ever released the defendant might not be receiving a fair trial. This person could potentially influence the other jury members that he/she had irrefuitable evidence of this person guilt.


I imagine every jury scenario we could think of, and worse, has happened in reality. No one ever said our jury system is perfect. It is just as imperfect as any individual or group of individuals serving on juries.

Call me an idealist, but I think it works pretty darn well most of the time and for most people. I think in fact that the shock and rage about OCA's NG verdict speaks to the jury system's success. We expected different because we EXPECTED the system to do it right.

Well, and yes, we expected them to do their job. I know people say well if they had spent ten hours deliberating and found her guilty no one would have a problem with that. The issue is, it's the State's case. All the evidence was presented by the State. Defense had pretty much nothing but theories. To not feel SA had enough evidence and then not invest time to go over the evidence again, I find hard to believe. They knew the child was dead, they knew there was duct tape the size of her face on the skull, they knew KC became the "party girl" in the 31 days after her child's death, and they could not decide what KC was guilty of given a wide choice of charges. They found her guilty of lying to LE but felt DT's theories might be credible even though JB couldn't prove anything and some theories were weak at best.

It is very hard to believe that this jury does not have a story to tell. jmo

 

[LambChop]

The jury is instructed to only rule on evidence presented in the courtroom. This is made very clear. One, if a jury member knew the defendant and/or had ties to the state, it would have been ferreted out in voir dire. The attorneys get the jury info sheets ahead of time in cases like that and run them through search engines. That ferrets out a lot.

Also, the jurors are stating in front of the other potential jurors that they have no ties. It would look incredibly fishy to the other jurors that this person lied in voir dire, but is now claiming outside knowledge. I doubt they would go along with it. Then you would also have to have this person angling to become the foreperson, and then somehow trying to exert their opinion.

Juries are not this complicated.

The murder trial I observed last month involved a foster parent accused of killing their foster child. The trial lasted three weeks. The jury returned a verdict after 2.5 hours, even though there was a ton of evidence. On its face, it looks like they didn't pay attention or wanted to leave. However, they took copious notes and chose to speak with the attorneys for the state and defense post-verdict. They gave thoughtful, articulate answers describing the deliberation process. This was in a more rural area, with some jurors that people would label as uneducated. They all thought through their opinions while discussing their verdict. Just because one person was emphatic on a point did not mean that they immediately flipped.

While I understand the need to keep juries open, the fact is, most do their job and do it well. Jury tampering and juror misconduct happens much less than people think it does, in my opinion. I'm torn on the issue of releasing names, but I don't think that releasing names really helps "prove" tampering or misconduct.

Has there ever been an instance where the release of juror names has lead to the discovery of tampering or misconduct? Or is this all conjecture?

A friend served on a jury and one of the juror's admitted in the jury room that his uncle had been a police officer. When asked by a fellow juror, "And they picked you?" he responded that he did not reveal it on his form during voir dire. This case involved charges being brought against LE and this person was very pro-LE. My friend waited a day and this person showed up the next day so they asked the bailiff if they could send a note to the judge. The following day after the note was delivered the juror did not show up and an alternate replaced him. Afterwards the judge spoke to my friend and told them they did the right thing by letting him know and then was surprised to find this person announced it to everyone in the jury room but my friend was the only one who came forward. So, it happens, and we just do not know about it.

Perfect example....Can you imagine KC filling out a voir dire form? lol jmo

 

[MsMacGyver]

A friend served on a jury and one of the juror's admitted in the jury room that his uncle had been a police officer. When asked by a fellow juror, "And they picked you?" he responded that he did not reveal it on his form during voir dire. This case involved charges being brought against LE and this person was very pro-LE. My friend waited a day and this person showed up the next day so they asked the bailiff if they could send a note to the judge. The following day after the note was delivered the juror did not show up and an alternate replaced him. Afterwards the judge spoke to my friend and told them they did the right thing by letting him know and then was surprised to find this person announced it to everyone in the jury room but my friend was the only one who came forward. So, it happens, and we just do not know about it.

Perfect example....Can you imagine KC filling out a voir dire form? lol jmo

bbm

:floorlaugh:.....Great post as always LC....:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[MsMacGyver]

IMO...If we are going to assign blame then we need to include all.

I don't agree with the verdict or the behavior of the jury deliberation. I think we do have to take into consideration the sequestration issue. Surprising if you research it how it resembles some form of abuse. Taking people and locking them away from their lives, controlling what they see, read, watch, eat. It can have an effect on them.

Then theres the States responsibilty..JA thought this was a slam dunk. I still believe from what I saw there was enough to convict but I wasn't a sitting juror. Then there was JA behavior in court. He could have contained himself more.

Then there is Judge P...The court room , imo, ran amuch with DT carp! His need to stay on scedule and budget. Was jury instructions complete?

Sidenote..OT..I saw JVM running after Mrs. Jackson..trying to get a comment...LOL
Seems like she always asks dumb questions..overdramatic acting...I wonder if she gets any respect..I know shes intelligent and cares deeply about animal rites..wish she would do some serious reporting, she would do much better.....jmo

 

[LinTX]

LinX- your thoughtful post deserves a longer response, but for now.. sealing jurors' names is just not the same thing as a secret jury. In this case we saw all the evidence, every minute of the trial; the trial was open in every sense of the word.

Actual jury deliberations are not recorded, and are never part of the public record. Does that mean we already have secret juries? Nah. It just means that the system assumes juries will do the right thing, and with integrity.

In theory. In practice, as JA says, its more like a carp-shoot.

Yes open trials are proof, to the people, that the trial proceedings follow the law. The deliberations being private simply allows the jury to work through and argue facts privately and then to emerge with a collective verdict. A jury being polled does allow everyone to know that each jurist agrees with the verdict, but other than that, they have every right to keep their thoughts and reasons to themselves. No one is forcing any of them to appear anywhere. Sealing the names from from the public does mean a secret jury, simply because we can't know who they are otherwise.

The principal of the jury system has been around since the Magna Carta, and was purposely adopted by our founding fathers. Yes, they certainly knew that those on the jury could face scrutiny from the public - public scrutiny has been a part of the process the whole time, it didn't begin in the 18th century. It's part of the reason the system works. Granted, laws have changed the make up of those juries over time, in order to make them more representative of the defendant's community, but they are publicly known for a reason. We no longer restrict service to land owners, to whites , or to males, or etc., etc., because the law expects them to be 'us'. And for us to know them. We know all the other parties to the case...judge, attorneys, court reporters, LE, witnesses, etc. and I don't see anyone suggesting those names should be sealed. Because the public is supposed to know who is who in the process. And to hold them accountable.

My question is how do we go about making sure juries are chosen fairly, are "from the people" and unbiased toward either side in court if we don't know who they are. Who do we trust to make sure that happens, if not the people? The judge? The attorneys? The DA's office? The jury system was put into place to allow the people to restrain the official's and the 'nobility's' power over them. If we allow only those in power to say the jury is from the people, and not beholden to parties in trial, doesn't that once again give all the power back to the powerful?