How the issue arises

A recent high-profile case in Washington, D.C., illustrates the concern over jury questionnaires. Jury selection for the trial of Ingmar Guandique, a Salvadoran man accused of killing U.S. government intern Chandra Levy, began on Oct. 18, 2010, in the District of Columbia Superior Court. As part of the juror selection process, known as voir dire, prospective jurors completed an 11-page, 55-question form.

The questionnaire asked potential jurors for standard demographic information as well as case-specific information, including knowledge about the case, familiarity with the crime area, and views on gangs and illegal immigration. Counsel for both parties used the completed questionnaires to examine the jury pool during the voir dire process.

After the trial began, The Washington Post requested access to the questionnaires that were completed by the 16 selected jurors and alternates for the case. The Post’s request was denied through a public affairs officer for the court.

As the trial continued, the Post, the Associated Press, Gannett Co. Inc. and The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a joint motion asking the Superior Court to grant public access to the completed questionnaires. The organizations argued that the First Amendment and common law provide for the public’s right of access to criminal proceedings and related court records.

The organizations further argued that access to the questionnaires would not have a negative effect on trial proceedings or participants, saying that there had been “no demonstration of any compelling and overriding interest that would warrant delaying or blocking access by the public and the press to at least the bulk of these materials.”

During a break in the trial, Judge Gerald I. Fisher said that, without the secrecy of the questionnaires, the court would not be able to “get full candor from the jury, and that was the overriding concern.” Fisher said he wanted to wait until the trial resumed before releasing anything because he had promised the jury their information would not be disclosed, and he wanted “to ask them about that.”

After meeting privately with the jurors, the court released each juror’s age, gender, education level and profession.

The media organizations filed a request for a formal, on-the-record finding explaining the reasoning for the court’s denial of access to the remaining questionnaire information.

According to court papers, a full hearing on the media’s motion was not held until after the jury returned a guilty verdict against Guandique and some members of the jury made themselves available to the press to discuss the case.

Fisher ruled that he would not publicly disclose the completed questionnaires, holding firmly to the justification that the jurors had expressed concerns about their privacy and that “people were going to try to talk to them and intrude upon their private or their working lives.” Additionally, Fisher said public access to questionnaires would create a risk of “unfairness during the trial itself.”

The Post has appealed this ruling, maintaining that “written juror questionnaires are an essential part of voir dire proceedings, and the public has a presumptive right of access to them under the First Amendment and the common law.” The appeal is currently pending in the D.C. Court of Appeals.