In high profile criminal trials judges will often order that the identities of the jurors shall remain anonymous. If a party or attorney discloses their identity it can lead to coercion or threats against the juror. But do they remain anonymous? If it is disclosed that Juror #10 is a female living in a certain city who works in an elementary school as a paraprofessional, it seems likely her friends and acquaintances, who likely know she is in the jury pool, will conclude she was seated as a juror. Those friends can then identify the juror on social media, leading to widespread disclosure of their identity. One juror in the current trial in NY federal court was excused when she reported feeling intimidated because her identity had been revealed on social media. Protecting parties, witnesses, lawyers, jurors and court personnel from threats or coercion is a serious issue that needs to be addressed in the judiciary and in the media. In the days ahead we must watch to see if the identities of the sitting jurors are protected.
The first anonymous jury was a federal trial of drug kingpin LeRoy Barnes in New York in 1977, according to The NY Times.
The judge in the trial in NY allowed the attorneys to know the names and addresses of the jurors, but those names and addresses re shielded from the press and public. The judge cited "a likelihood of bribery, jury tampering, or of physical injury or harassment of juror(s)." Of what use are the names and addresses of jurors to the attorneys? They most certainly have searched each juror's social media presence, history in the courts, and education and employment history. This basically allows in-depth "cross-examination" of each juror during selection. An already-seated juror in the NY trial was excused after having failed during examination to reveal his arrest in the 1990's and his wife's investigation for corruption.
In Court there is simply THE TRUTH, not each person's opinion of the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment