07B

B. Anonymous juries

B. Anonymous juries

Overview

Pennsylvania

While there is no common law right of access to the names and addresses of impaneled jurors, there is a First Amendment right of access to jurors’ names but not addresses.  Commonwealth v. Long, 922 A.2d 892 (Pa.

B. Anonymous juries

Overview

Michigan

Michigan has recognized a qualified right to the names and addresses of jurors after the verdict. See People v. Mitchell, 27 Media L. Rep. 1481 (Mich. App. 1999). 

B. Anonymous juries

Overview

New Jersey

New Jersey recognizes that the First Amendment right of access extends to the identities of jurors. See State v. Neulander, 668 N.W.2d 667 (N.J. 2002); U.S. v. Antar, 839 F. Supp. 293 (D. N.J. 1993). 

B. Anonymous juries

Overview

Ohio

Ohio trial courts cannot prohibit the press from publishing jurors’ names. See State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. McMonagle, 8 Media L. Rep. 1927 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). 

B. Anonymous juries

Overview

California

The list of qualified jurors’ names and addresses is a judicial record, presumed open to public access. See Pantos v. City and County of San Francisco, 151 Cal. App. 3d 258, 198 Cal. Rep. 489 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984). 

B. Anonymous juries

Overview

Maryland

Under the Maryland Rules, “[a] custodian shall, upon request, disclose the names and zip codes of the sworn jurors contained on a jury list after the jury has been impaneled and sworn, unless otherwise ordered by the trial judge.” Rule 16-1004(b)(2)(B).

B. Anonymous juries

Overview

Kansas

The Kansas Supreme Court has prescribed when a trial judge may grant anonymity to jurors in criminal trials:

Empaneling an anonymous jury is viewed as a drastic measure which should be undertaken only under certain limited circumstances. The trial court must balance the need to ensure juror safety against the defendant's right to the presumption of innocence and the ability to conduct an effective voir dire. This balancing test is met where (1) there is strong reason to believe the jury needs protection and (2) the court takes reasonable precautions to minimize any prejudicial effects on the defendant and to ensure his or her fundamental rights are protected.

State v. Brown, 118 P.3d 1273, 1279 (Kan. 2005) (citations omitted).

B. Anonymous juries

Overview

Minnesota

The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that an anonymous jury may be empanelled only if the trial court “(a) determines that there is a strong reason to believe that the jury needs protection from external threats to its members’ safety and impartiality; and (b) takes reasonable precautions to minimize any possible prejudicial effect the jurors’ anonymity might have on the defendant.” State v. Bowles, 530 N.W.2d 521, 530-531 (Minn. 1995); see also State v. Wren, 738 N.W.2d 378, 385 (Minn. 2007); State v.

B. Anonymous juries

Overview

Rhode Island

B. Anonymous juries

Overview

3rd Cir.

United States v. Wecht, 537 F.3d 222 (3d Cir. 2008) The Third Circuit held that the public has a constitutional right of access to the names of jurors called in any given case.