Secret Justice: Anonymous Juries The anonymous jury — questionable enough when reserved for high-profile trials of notorious, controversial or dangerous defendants like Tim McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski — are becoming popular in more and more trials, like that of former Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards — in some cases with no greater justification than a desire to “protect” jurors from being questioned by the Fall 2000 media about their The Reporters Committee For Freedom of the Press decisions. The growing trend toward Secret Justice: A continuing series anonymous juries The American judicial system has, By Ashley Gauthier Department, he said the jurors anonymity historically, been open to the public, Journalists have historically considered hurt the defendants’ case. and the U.S. Supreme Court has con- the jurors part of the story when covering “This business of anonymous juries, tinually affirmed the presumption of court cases. Most would agree interviewing where the press, the public and the defen- openness. However, as technology jurors enhances the coverage of verdicts dants do not know who the people sitting in expands and as the perceived threat of because their perspective adds insight to the jury box are, is wrong. It is contrary to violence grows, individual courts at- the case. Similarly, part of the story can turn the concept of being tried by your peers in tempt to keep control over proceed- on the jurors themselves. In the O.J. Simp- a community where you know the jurors ings by limiting the flow of son murder and Rodney King beating cases, and they know you,” he said. information. Courts are reluctant to for example, the racial composition of the allow media access to certain cases or jury was itself the subject of controversy, History of anonymous juries to certain proceedings, like jury selec- with some arguing that it even determined Anonymous juries are a relatively new tion. Courts routinely impose gag or- the outcome of the case. phenomenon. The first fully anonymous ders to limit public discussion about There is a creeping trend by courts, jury empaneled in the United States was in pending cases, presuming that there is however, to empanel “anonymous juries,” the 1977 trial of drug kingpin Leroy Barnes no better way to ensure a fair trial. which is part of a larger trend toward secre- in New York City. The court believed Bar- Many judges fear that having cameras cy in the courts. Court secrecy hinders a nes presented an unusually dangerous risk in courtrooms will somehow interfere journalist’s ability to collect all the facts and to the jurors and it took the extraordinary with the decorum and solemnity of can also adversely affect the fairness of the measure of hiding their identities. (United judicial proceedings. Such steps, pur- judicial system. When not subject to public States v. Barnes) portedly taken to ensure fairness, may scrutiny, courts, jurors or litigants could Thereafter, anonymous juries were used actually harm the integrity of a trial more easily engage in improprieties. sparsely, primarily in criminal cases when because court secrecy and limits on the defendant was notoriously dangerous information are contrary to the fun- An Example and the court reasonably believed a fair trial damental constitutional guarantee of Linda Lightfoot, editor of The Advocate could not be held without protecting the a public trial. in Baton Rouge, La., has struggled recently jurors’ identities. In many cases, the defen- The public should be the benefi- with the effect of juror anonymity in the dant had previously tried to bribe, intimi- ciary of the judicial system. Criminal corruption trial of former governor Edwin date, or harm jurors, actions that justified proceedings are instituted in the name Edwards. She summed up the problem nice- juror anonymity. Through the mid-1980s, of “the people” for the benefit of the ly: “History loses.” the use of anonymous juries was concen- public. Civil proceedings are available Edwards, a four-term governor, was ar- trated in New York federal courts and was for members of the public to obtain guably the most influential political figure only used in exceptional circumstances. justice, either individually or on be- in state history since Huey Long, but he has Even Washington, D.C., once regarded as half of a “class” of persons similarly also faced numerous charges of corruption. one of America’s most dangerous cities, situated. The public, therefore, should One case, tried in the Spring of 2000, refrained from empaneling anonymous ju- be informed — well informed — about involved charges that Edwards accepted ries until 1990, when it used one for the trial trials of public interest. The media, as bribes in the riverboat gambling licensing of druglord Rayful Edmond. The court the public’s representative, needs to process. Another trial, in September 2000, considered Edmond so dangerous that his be aware of threats to openness in involved alleged corruption in the Insur- trial took place in a courtroom protected by court proceedings, and must be pre- ance Department. Anonymous juries con- bulletproof glass. pared to fight to insure continued ac- victed Edwards in the first trial and acquitted By the mid-1990s, however, some courts cess to trials. him in the second. used anonymous juries regularly. Two Cal- Over the next two years, the Re- In an attempt to better understand the ifornia judges, for example, decided to em- porters Committee will take a look at verdicts and keep an accurate records of panel anonymous juries in all criminal cases key aspects of court secrecy and how state history, Lightfoot would like the names and continued until an appellate court or- they affect the newsgathering process. of the jurors. She said, “part of the process dered an end to the practice. Recently, a We will examine trends toward secre- is lost when the press cannot report who county court in Ohio empaneled anony- cy, what they are, how they limit in- made the decision or how the decision was mous juries in all cases, civil and criminal, formation, and what can be done to made.” She added, “even if the juror doesn’t although the policy is currently under re- challenge court secrecy. The first arti- want to speak [to the press] now, they may view by the Ohio Supreme Court. (Ohio v. cle in this indefinite “Secret Justice” want to talk in four years.” Hill) series concerns the growing trend of Edwards also objected to the anony- At the other end of the spectrum, some anonymous juries. mous juries used in the trials: “There are states, like Massachusetts and New Jersey, serious overtures occurring, insidiously, have questioned and limited the use of anon- This report was researched and writ- gradually and in many areas somewhat ymous juries. The Massachusetts high court ten by Ashley Gauthier, who is the 2000- unnoticed in the criminal justice system,” concluded that an anonymous jury is con- 2001 McCormick-Tribune Legal Fellow he told reporters. stitutionally valid only if it is absolutely at the Reporters Committee. Even though Edwards was acquitted of necessary to protect jurors from harm. (Mas- corruption charges involving the Insurance sachusetts v. Anguilo) PAGE 2 THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS FALL 2000 In most federal courts, however, anony- “It is possible, for example, that suspi- Capone and Lucky Luciano were success- mous juries are considered one of the many cions might arise in a particular trial . that fully tried without anonymous juries, and in tools the court can employ to control a trial jurors were selected from only a narrow retrospect, it is possible that their convic- and the participants. social group, or from persons with certain tions are, at least in part, attributable to the In the first of Edwards’ corruption trials political affiliations, or from persons asso- fact that court openness prevented bribery in 2000, Judge Frank Polozola not only ciated with organized crime groups. It would or jury tampering. empaneled an anonymous jury, he also sealed be more difficult to inquire into such mat- Other arguments against anonymous his order containing the reasons for an ters, and those suspicions would seem in juries involve the rights of the defendant. anonymous jury. Media organizations, in- any event more real to the public, if names Some argue that juror anonymity implies cluding The Advocate, challenged the judge’s and addresses were kept secret.” (In re Globe that the defendant is unusually dangerous, sealing of the orders. Lightfoot will pursue Newspaper) which in turn impairs the presumption of the newspaper’s interest to obtain the jurors’ names be- cause “these are the people who are deciding Louisiana history.” Polozola eventual- ly released the document that explained he made the jury anonymous because of accusation of jury tamper- ing in a previous, but un- specified, Edwards criminal trial. Defining “anonymous jury” To fully realize the ram- ifications of a court’s decla- ration of an anonymous jury, the concept should be put into practical terms. Usual- ly, the court will withhold the names, addresses and phone numbers of the ju- rors. But courts may also withhold other identifying factors, such as occupation, ethnicity, religion, or the responses to juror question- naires. Sometimes the juror AP PHOTO OF COURTROOM SKETCH names are given to the court, An anonymous jury was used in the trial of the World Trade Center bombers. but not to the media or even the parties in the case. Sometimes the par- The Failure of innocence. However, that argument is also ties’ lawyers are given access to juror infor- Anonymous Juries used to support the notion that all juries mation but it is withheld from the public The trial of mobster John Gotti best should be anonymous.