Access to questionnaires varies

Jurisdictions vary on whether completed juror questionnaires are considered open records that are available for public inspection.

Oklahoma is one of several states that allows juror questionnaires to be used by parties during voir dire, while prohibiting public access. “Access to the questionnaires by the parties must be balanced against the juror’s right to privacy and to the confidentiality of the information in the questionnaires,” according to Oklahoma’s court rules (emphasis added).

The Oklahoma rule contains no provision for balancing the public’s interest; the rule expressly provides that the questionnaires shall not be made part of the public record, with all but the original questionnaires of the impaneled jurors destroyed at the conclusion of the juror’s service. Even the originals of the impanelled jurors are to be destroyed after the completion of any appeal.

Likewise, Connecticut law requires counsel to return copies of completed juror questionnaires to the clerk upon completion of voir dire. The law also says the completed questionnaires, which include personal identifying information, demographic information and other “information usually raised in voir dire examinations,” are not to be considered public records. Information written by jurors is to be held in confidence by the court, parties, counsel and their authorized agents, except for disclosures made during voir dire or under a court order.

Laws and rules in other states allow public disclosure of some information in a questionnaire, but require the requestor to explain the need for the information. New Mexico makes questionnaires “available for inspection and copying by a party to a pending proceeding or their attorney or to any person having good cause for access to the list and the questionnaires.”

Similarly, Minnesota law provides that names and answers to questionnaires, with some exceptions, “must be made available to the public” upon request. However, the state requires that the request must be “supported by affidavit setting forth the reasons for the request.” Minnesota courts can also decline to disclose or can place limits on the disclosure of the information based on safety and impartiality concerns, or in the “interest of justice.”

Other states have no formal statute or written rule regarding whether juror questionnaires are publicly accessible. Utah is one such state. Jeffrey J. Hunt, a media lawyer in Salt Lake City, said Utah courts generally follow a presumption that, after juror questionnaire information is requested, the media and public are allowed access to it, with sensitive information such as social security numbers and addresses redacted.

“Generally speaking, both in state and federal court, jury questionnaires are released, but typically in redacted form,” said Hunt, who focuses in commercial litigation, with an emphasis on First Amendment, media and intellectual property law. “[T]here is no rule that I’m aware of that governs it [in Utah], no case law. It is just what the practice has been,” he said.

Hunt said that, in his experience, when the media wants access to juror questionnaires, they assert that the questionnaires are part of voir dire. Tying the questionnaires to voir dire is the “constitutional linchpin for arguing that there is a First Amendment right of access to them. The Supreme Court has made clear that in juror voir dire in a criminal case, there is a qualified first amendment right of access that attaches and this is part of that process.”

Some published court opinions have taken this approach, including the Ohio Supreme Court in Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Bond, the New Mexico Supreme Court in Stephens Media, LLC v. Eighth Judicial District Court, and California appellate courts in Bellas v. Superior Court and Lesher Communications, Inc. v. Superior Court. But as the varying jurisdictional practices and rules reflect, there is no uniform agreement on the public’s access rights when it comes to questionnaires.