Jurors names to be revealed

Register to hide this ad
Making the names of jurors public does two things. First, it makes it easier to influence a juror during the trial. Second, it makes it easier for retribution after a conviction by those friendly with the convicted.

We have a hard enough time getting competent people to serve as it is.
 
Last edited:
My father was on what was called a 'struck jury" or "blue ribbon list" of possible jurors that judges used for complex Federal cases. That was ultimately ruled illegal. He served on more than his fair share Federal juries.

A struck jury entails the formation of a jury pool of men who possess special qualifications to judge of the facts of a case.
 
Last edited:
Can't say in a public forum what I think of this. It certainly "taints" the possibility of selecting a jury.

Even if jury duty came with a lifetime carry permit, an issue weapon, training, and a lifetime license to kill anything that even looks suspicious, it would not be worth the risk.

I know all the ways to get off one, but rarely use them. That would change in a hurry.
 
Does not take effect outside of Massachusetts...

I would not worry over it. Most people have more to fear from me, than I from them.
 
Keep in mind that the parties (including a criminal defendant) already know the names. So to the extent there is a safety concern regarding this it's more an issue with respect to reaction of people other than the litigants (e.g., reaction to first Rodney King verdict).
 
In my county the XXX County Journal names all jurors. Outside of jury selection I never saw mention of a sex crime trial that I was not seated on so the exception might be sex crime trials with young victims that the judge puts a gag order on. However, most sex crime trials are fully written up. This is not the big city. The front page headline is often high school sports. The journal has quoted the entire testimony of witnesses in DUI trials. If you are seated on a jury you expect to see your name in the journal. This is not new. When you get the summons, man up and do your part to make the system fair. Life is not without risks.

And if you refuse jury duty you will be held in contempt.

Lose-Lose.

That may be what judges in your area do. In Washington knowingly failing to answer a jury summons is a rarely enforced gross misdemeanor. To prosecute they'd have to start by proving you received their snail mail. [hint]

Incidentally, I was mildly amused watching a local retired defense attorney keep him self from being seated. He was asked a question I've forgotten, something like "is it raining out?" His long winded answer was the lying prosecutor never said a thing that was true in his life and nearly the same about the LEOs. The prosecutor smiled wryly, did not object and said "thank-you." Four hours later he made the retired defense attorney his last dismissal without cause.
 
That may be what judges in your area do. In Washington knowingly failing to answer a jury summons is a rarely enforced gross misdemeanor. To prosecute they'd have to start by proving you received their snail mail. [hint]

Incidentally, I was mildly amused watching a local retired defense attorney keep him self from being seated. He was asked a question I've forgotten, something like "is it raining out?" His long winded answer was the lying prosecutor never said a thing that was true in his life and nearly the same about the LEOs. The prosecutor smiled wryly, did not object and said "thank-you." Four hours later he made the retired defense attorney his last dismissal without cause.

I've known people who pull that first gag, and I've known people doing serious construction in this city who find it cheaper to pay the $500 fine than lose a day's pay and benefits.

As for the second stunt, we had something similar on Monday. It was at least 90 minutes before the defence decided to dismiss the juror who did data entry for Metro.:confused:
 
Here, I think the names of jurors is already a matter of public record. In the case that I was involved in, I know for sure that the defense attorney knew my full name and address.

I appreciate the downside of public disclosure, but a jury of anonymous people sounds like something that would happen in a repressive dictatorship.
 
You can't refuse, but you can frame your answers so that you are challenged and dismissed by the judge.

"Since I know my name is going to be public, I'm going to vote to acquit so that none of his friends come and kill me."

And if you refuse jury duty you will be held in contempt.

Lose-Lose.
 
While the attorneys know your name so that they can vet you, they are not supposed to divulge that to their clients IIRC.

Here, I think the names of jurors is already a matter of public record. In the case that I was involved in, I know for sure that the defense attorney knew my full name and address.

I appreciate the downside of public disclosure, but a jury of anonymous people sounds like something that would happen in a repressive dictatorship.
 
Sounds like something the Hudson Valley (NY) Journal News would pull along with a interactive map with addresses with pins showing exactly where the Jurors live. Like they did with pistol permit holders
 
While the attorneys know your name so that they can vet you, they are not supposed to divulge that to their clients IIRC.

That's not how it works in Washington State. The only anonymous jurors in Washington State are federal grand jurors and their foreman signs indictments which may be sealed prior to arrests but generally are public. Your state may vary.
 
Back
Top