Jurors Names and Addresses Must Be Disclosed after Trial

• Author: Erik A. Christiansen
• Pages: 8-8

Published in Litigation News Volume 45, Number 3, Winte r 2020. © 2020 by the Ame rican Bar Associati on. Reproduced with p ermission. All rights r eserved. This in formation or any por tion thereof may no t be copied or disseminate d in any

form or by any means or sto red in an electronic da tabase or retrieval sy stem without the ex press writt en consent of the Amer ican Bar Associatio n.

8 | S ECTION OF LITIGATION

ETHICS STR UGGLES IN THE LEGAL WOR LD

U.S. cour t of appeals has ruled

that generalized concerns

about privacy i n the internet

age are not enou gh to pre-

vent public disclo sure of

juror names an d addresses. It held that

unless a distric t court made particula r-

ized findings conc erning privacy, a dis-

trict court wou ld be required to publicly

disclose juror names and addresses

immediately fol lowing trial. Observers

suggest that the d ecision potentially

undercuts juro r safety.

In Chin v. Trustees of Boston

University, a public radio statio n in

Boston, WBU R, sought to obtain ju-

rors names and a ddresses after a

criminal trial involving Glenn Chin. The

defendant, a pharmacist, had been

charged with 25 p redicate acts of sec-

ond-degre e murder after he distribut-

ed contaminated medications causing

a deadly fungal meningitis outbreak.

Chin was found gu ilty of mail fraud

and other lesse r oenses but not

guilty of murde r.

The U.S. D istrict Court for the

District of Mas sachusetts ordered the

release of juror na mes and hometowns

but not address es. It had refused to

publicly release juror addresses as “a

necessary p recaution in an age in which

traditional boundaries of personal pri-

vacy are under a ssault.” It also delayed

the release of juro r names until after

Chin’s sentencing , three months after

the guilty verdic t.

The U.S. Co urt of Appeals for the

First Circuit note d that the case raised

three competing i nterests: “the press’s

First Amendm ent right of access to

criminal trials [,] the defendant’s Sixth

Amendment ri ght to a fair trial[, and]

the jurors[’] i nterest in having their

privacy protecte d.” With respect to

the First Amendment, knowledge of

juror identities “al lows the public to

verify the impa rtiality of key partici-

pants in the adm inistration of justice,”

the court reaso ned. “[P]ublic disclo-

sure of juror identiti es serves many

Jurors Names and Addresses Must

Be Disclosed after Trial

of the same purp oses of ‘open jus-

tice’ that are protecte d by the First

Amendment of the Constitution.”

Although the cou rt of appeals men-

tioned these com peting arguments, it

did not reach them . Instead, it relied on

the District of Ma ssachusetts Plan for

Random Sele ction of Jurors (Jury Plan),

which the distric t adopted pursuant

to the U.S. Ju ry Selection and Ser vice

Act. The Jur y Plan was adopted in 1982

and interpreted in th e 1990 decision of

In re Globe Newsp aper Co. Neither the

act nor Jur y Plan prevents disclosure of

juror names and addresses.

In re Globe constr ued the Jury Plan

to require the cour t to release juror

identities afte r a verdict is released, un-

less the court m akes particularized find-

ings reasonably justifying nondisclo-

sure. Such par ticularized findings might

include “a credib le threat of jury tam-

pering, a risk of p ersonal harm to indi-

vidual jurors , and other evils aecting

the administrat ion of justice.”

The court of app eals held that the

Jury Plan req uired the court to release

jurors’ names and addresses imme-

diately following a verd ict unless the

trial court makes particularized find-

ings to the contrar y. The district cour t

did not make parti cularized findings to

justify not releasing juror addresses,

so the court of app eals reversed and

remanded to the tri al court to recon-

sider the issue.

The court also d eclined the invita-

tion to “revisit the hold ing in light of

changes in tech nology over the past

thirty years .” Even though “In re Glo be

was decided decades ago and thus

well before the firs t tweet was tweet-

ed,” the court of a ppeals held, “these

technologic al changes have by no

means diminis hed the need for ac-

countability and transparency in our

system of jus tice.”

This decision co ncerned ABA

Section of Litigati on leaders. The court

of appeals “ducke d the privacy issues”

and “ignored th e larger juror safety

By Erik A. Christia nsen, Litigation N ews Associate Editor

concerns,” ob serves John M. Barkett,

Miami, FL, coc hair of the Section of

Litigation’s Ethics & Prof essionalism

Committee. While the flexible approach

of In re Globe works in “ 999 out of 1000

trials,” Barket t reasons, “in a high-pro -

file case, it migh t be worth rethinking

the result, espe cially in a world where

information travels so quickly.”

Other Section leaders agree. “This

opinion is not ne cessarily the best ve-

hicle to address co ncerns with intrusion

into jurors’ privac y and the potential ad-

verse conseque nces in this social media

era,” says Darr yl A. Goldberg, Chica go,

IL, cochair of th e Trial Subcommitte e

of the Section’s Cri minal Litigation

Committee. O n the other hand, “as a

criminal lawye r,” says Goldberg, “e m-

paneling anonymous juries gener-

ally puts the defe ndant at a serious

disadvantage by sending an unavoid-

able messag e that the defendant is

dangerous.”

The court of app eals held that “the

proper way for conce rns about juror

privacy to be addre ssed is through the

process of amen ding the Jury Plan it-

self.” Section lea ders embrace this

holding. “Courts should discuss an

amendment of t he local Jury Plan,”

says Goldberg , “insofar as it would be

lawful, to potentia lly address the pri-

vacy considera tions raised by the dis-

trict court an d bring the plan in touch

with the modern er a.”

RESOURCES

Chin v. Trs. of Bos. U niv., No. 17-2048 (1st

Cir. Jan. 18, 2 019).

In re Globe News paper Co., 920 F.2d 88

(1st Cir. 199 0).

United States v. Doh erty, 675 F. Supp. 719

(D. Mass. 19 87).

Car l A. Aveni, “Judge Restricts L awyers

from Researc hing Jurors Online ,”

Litigation News (July 21 , 2016).