Tracking down jurors

Even if a court can refuse to disclose jury information in an extraordinary case, it probably cannot stop reporters from trying to track down jurors on their own.

U.S. District Judge Edith Brown Clement's orders to the media not to "interfere with" or "circumvent" her decision to empanel an anonymous jury in the September 2000 trial of former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards and his associates was an unconstitutional prior restraint on newsgathering, the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans (5th Cir.) held, somewhat grudgingly, in 2001. (U.S. v. Brown)

Clement's orders were not fully enforceable since the trial court could not sanction violations that occurred outside its jurisdiction. Additionally, the ambiguity of the terms "interfere" and "circumvent" rendered the orders overbroad. Finally, the directives could fail to protect jurors because "restraining the press from independent investigation and reporting about the jurors would not necessarily deter defendants" from interfering with the judicial process, the court said.

"With considerable doubt, we conclude that [the orders] were unconstitutional insofar as they interdicted the press from independent investigation and reporting about the jury based on facts obtained from sources other than confidential court records, court personnel or trial participants [who were subject to a gag order]," Judge Edith H. Jones wrote for the court.

Thus, it seems reporters are free to use time-honored techniques for gathering news on jurors, such as attending jury selection and writing down the names called out, or waiting until the trial is over and approaching jurors in the courthouse parking lot. -- KK