VIRGINIA BEACH
Judges in Circuit Court have automatically sealed the names of jurors deciding criminal cases since November.
The court is the only one in South Hampton Roads to take such a broad interpretation of a law enacted last year to address juror confidentiality. And that approach has some state lawmakers and open-records advocates questioning whether the Beach court's policy goes beyond the intent of the statute.
"You must have a complete riot, social anarchy, if for every case that comes into the court that you have to seal the names of every juror," said Del. Bob Marshall, who introduced the juror confidentiality bill last year.
Marshall, R-Prince William County, said he introduced the bill after judges in Northern Virginia relayed reports of gang members trying to intimidate jurors. The bill, he said, was aimed at giving the judges discretion to seal jurors' names.
The law says in part that "the court may, upon motion of either party or its own motion, and for good cause shown, issue an order regulating the disclosure of the personal information of a juror..."
"Good cause" includes "the likelihood of bribery, tampering, or physical injury to or harassment of a juror."
The law also calls for the state Supreme Court to develop and publish rules addressing the confidentiality of juror information. Those rules are expected to be published this week, said Bethany Wolfe, a Virginia Supreme Court spokeswoman.
Circuit judges in Virginia Beach decided that they would automatically seal jurors' names and personal information unless the state Supreme Court says otherwise, said Chief Circuit Judge Frederick Lowe.
"It's an ounce-of-prevention-type thing," he said.
"Since the statute gave us the authority to do it, we figured we'd do it, mostly for security," he said.
The statute does not allow for an anonymous jury, and the public still can learn the names of jurors during selection at the start of the trial, Lowe noted.
"If you want to find out bad enough, you can sit in the courtroom and find out who everybody is," he said.
Del. Dave Albo, R-Fairfax County, said sealing information should be reserved for clearly compelling reasons. He said restricting access through a court order hinders the press, attorneys and the public from reviewing an important element of the case.
Lawyers often use jurors' information after a trial to solicit feedback on their performance, said Albo, an attorney and chairman of the House courts committee.
"The intent of the law is that everything should be presumed to be open, and if there's good cause shown, it should be closed," he said.
The Virginia Beach policy, he said, "is kind of opposite of the intent of the law."
Jurors' names are rarely, if ever, sealed in Norfolk, Chesapeake, Suffolk and Portsmouth circuit courts, according to clerks and administrators in those cities. Even in high-profile cases, the names of jurors who decided a defendant's fate typically remain part of the public record, said Norfolk's chief deputy clerk, Tom Larson, and Chesapeake jury administrator Rannie Brown.
"We pretty much go by what the statute mandates," Brown said. "There's certain information that it says is public, and names are public."
Cynthia P. Morrison, clerk of the Portsmouth Circuit Court, agreed. As a practice, she said, Portsmouth judges do not seal jurors' names. Maintaining the names in an open file provides a level of transparency and allows the public to review the case, she said.
Her counterpart in Suffolk, Randy Carter, said he couldn't recall a jury's information being sealed in 20 years. Taking such a measure, he said, ought to require a compelling reason.
"It would have to be above and beyond just because they're on jury duty," he said.
During discussion in the General Assembly, committee and subcommittee members never talked about the possibility that the proposed bill would be used as broadly as it is in Virginia Beach, said Ginger Stanley, executive director of the Virginia Press Association.
Stanley lobbied unsuccessfully against the bill, but she helped persuade lawmakers to include wording that allowed the media and the public with a "legitimate interest or need" to request the unsealing of jurors' names.
Stanley said the statute may need to be amended next session. That way, she said, courts would not be able to adopt the Virginia Beach court's view.
"It's important that this be challenged," she said.
Marshall, the bill sponsor, said he trusted judges to decide when the sealing of information is warranted.
"If it results in an abuse," Marshall said, "I'm sure we'll find out."
Shawn Day, (757) 222-5131, shawn.day@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
MAKING THE CASE FOR THE SECOND AMEND
I can't think of a better reason to fight for the Second Amendment than for revenge on a juror.
good for VB
Its about time one of the courts in this state goes out of its way to protect juror. The jury has a hard enough of a job without worryinn if the criminal they may have to put in prison for life will seek payback. Too bad for the defense cuncil that they will have to a little extra work to get the list of jurors. For the people that say this is a bad thing, I hope that no criminal gets your home address and is standing on your front poch wanting to know why you just locked up of his gang-banger buddies. Good Job VB
Not necessary for office staff
Having a jury list for an attorney's office is not necessary for everyone to read it to make sure that someone in the office doesn't know the juror. They introduce all people involved in the case to the jury and advise the jury of where the attorney works and if they know them or someone in the office. Plus, at least in Va Beach, they pick the jury and then proceed with the case in the same day. There isn't time for the attorney or paralegal to step out of the courtroom to fax the list to the office and have everyone review it. There is no valid reason to keep the jury lists open to the public.
Do YOU
want your name and information floating around such that it could endanger you or your family? So why NOT provide the juror with protection? Perhaps the best thing to do is to poll each juror as to whether or not they want to be protected. I'd bet 99% of the sane jurors will want to be protected form the insane!
A GOOD IDEA
I also think this is a good idea. There are gangs out there who would take retribution on anyone in a convicting jury if they could get the names and address of the people on the jury. The jurors are not the criminals nor are the judges.
Seems Like a Good Idea
With all the nut cases, including defendants, lawyers, families, etc., making threats and intimidating jurors, seems like a good idea to me to keep the names secret. If I'm on a jury trying some of the wackos that seem to be coming into the justice system, I want as much anonymity as possibe!
To seal or not to seal
Sealing of jury lists should be the exception, not the rule.
Secured Jury Lists.
Makes words of sense and it is a sure Firewall against persons wanting to intimidate Jurors,or worse!
It is about time jurors were protect
as much as the cretins on trial. There is no compelling reason for the general public to know the names of the jurors. I can understand court officials up to and during jury selection; however, once the jury is selected and the case has begun there is no purpose to knowing the names of the jurors. What possible purpose does that knowledge serve? For exit polling? In this day and age of being able to Google everything, it is time respect and protect those folks doing their civic duty.
Jury Lists
I've been a paralegal for 10 years. When we have a jury trial at work, we call the Court, get the jury list & have everyone in the office look at it to make sure no one is related to a potential juror or knows them, etc. This is a good way to prevent any type of perceived bias. The jury lists should be available to the attorneys & their staff for this reason.
In Todays World
I agree that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I personally would feel safer if my personal information was on record for everyone to look up. I know that it is very easy to get it but if the courts can make it that much hard for snug the blood gangmember to get my info all the better. And if surving on a jury you need to read the following link
http://www.fija.org/
Great, now they REALLY want trouble...
Okay, if you're trying one of these gangbangers, the accused is supposed to have a jury of his peers-if that were REALLY true, the low-life's who really are their peers would probably never show up to court for fear of being arrested on outstanding warrants and would probably cast their votes for Obama rather than vote to convict-even if the evidence was overwhelming and the suspect confessed.
So the accused has his fellow gangbangers follow members of the jury home for purposes of intimidation or other threats-then we have a mistrial and we start all over. The courts or the police won't arrive until after the jurors have been harmed, so tell me again why we're supposed to "serve" as jurors?
These lowlifes or their friends don't have respect for themselves, let alone the justice system so why do we not have anonymous jurors to protect them while performing their civic "duty"?
I care about as much for the rights of the accused as they did for the victim of their crime....
Really?
What is the big deal? According to the article it seems the only complaint is that attorney's can't get the names of the jury to find out about there performance in court. I see nothing wrong with what they are doing. I would prefer that my name be sealed if I was serving on a jury. Last thing I need is some attorney calling me for a survey. If I need you, I'll call.