 |
Protecting Juror PrivacyBy Charles C. KellerEditor's Note: This is the fourth in a series of articles on current challenges to privacy. Prior articles dealt with privacy in medical records, court records, and the use and monitoring of e-mail. In a classroom discussion about jury service, a student blurted out, "I never want to be summoned for jury service. It's dangerous. Everyone gets to know everything about you - where you live, where you work, where your kids go to school, even criminals get to know that information. You are not allowed to keep anything private." In 1994, a prospective juror refused to answer several questions on her juror questionnaire, maintaining that questions about her income, religion, television and reading habits, political affiliations and health, were "very private and irrelevant." She was cited for contempt of court. She narrowly escaped judicial punishment when the judge ruled that there must be a balancing of the juror's right to privacy against the needs of the parties and the rights of the public to have open voir dire (questioning). We have all been taught that jury service is a civic duty, and yet there are many negatives connected with such service, beginning with the unnerving receipt of a "summons." There is today a major effort being made in almost every court to make jury duty more convenient and less burdensome. Clearly, the selection process is critical to the interests of the parties to the lawsuit and to the concept of justice. Lawyers, in representing their clients, whether a criminal or civil case, whether representing the plaintiff or defendant, always look for certain qualities, characteristics, or responses from jurors... their fears, concerns, bias or prejudice, and any personal contact or experience which would influence the decision of the juror or other jurors. In seeking a fair trial, few would argue with searching out such attitudes or information for prospective jurors. But one does not entirely surrender his or her right to privacy by agreeing to serve on a jury. Justice Brandeis said it best in 1928, "The right to be let alone is the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized people. The courts have acknowledged as a general rule that jurors do have a qualified right to privacy, based on the Sixth Amendment right of criminal defendants to a fair and impartial jury and on the First Amendment right of the public and press to open court proceedings. The same cases define the 'right to privacy' in terms of preventing threats to physical safety or to the integrity of the judicial process (i.e., jury tampering, intimidation, harassment, etc.)." In recent studies by the American Judicature Society, jurors have focused on the questioning process and the kinds of information sought. Their conclusions identify two kinds of questions they believed unnecessary to select a fair and impartial jury. The first group of questions related to family and personal matters, such as information about children and their schooling, place and kind of employment, prior contacts with the law, home and work telephone numbers and social security numbers, etc. Juror objections to certain questions in this area were based on concerns for family safety and avoiding retaliation, as well as concern that this information leads to stereotyping, which in turn has nothing to do with fitness to serve as a juror. The second objection revealed in the survey was to questions relating to a juror's interests and associations. The strong feeling was that a person's church, charitable interests, hobbies, possession of guns, etc., ordinarily have nothing to do with fitness to serve as a juror. Jurors rated these kinds of questions as either unnecessary, uncomfortable, or "too private." The judicial system is increasingly sensitive to juror suggestions and complaints. The federal and state systems use different methods of selecting jurors. In some courts, the questioning is done by the judge, or by court employees. In many instances, the questioning is done by lawyers, or some courts use a combination of both. Generally, jurors expressed a feeling of comfort in being questioned by the lawyers, who tend to focus questions more on the reality of the case before them. There are many approaches which can provide jurors with reasonable privacy protection. Some courts provide a written questionnaire in advance, where the answers are seen only by the attorneys. Some courts are experimenting with anonymous juries, who are not publicly identified. Some courts seal the transcript of the voir dire in unusual cases, or permit questioning of jurors in private. One device strongly supported by the jurors is a brief opening statement by the lawyers so that they have an idea what the case is about and what the sensitive areas are which require questioning of jurors by the attorneys. In court circles, there is an increasing recommendation to reduce the number of "peremptory" challenges, which are automatic and do not require a reason. Lawyers generally resist this change since the selection of jurors is largely subjective anyway and the peremptory challenge is the only opportunity of lawyers to strike a juror about whom they have a "bad feeling." It has become common practice in some high profile civil and criminal cases for attorneys to conduct independent investigations of jurors. Many judges tacitly disapprove such screening but rarely take overt steps to limit the practice. It is instructive to note the American Bar Association disapproves of independent investigations, and urges the jury selection process take place only in the courtroom, on the record, and under direct supervision of the trial judge. We have emphasized the importance of reaching a fair balance between juror privacy and the selection of unbiased jurors. But in the final analysis, the ultimate goal is justice in the courtroom and each competing interest must accommodate to that goal. Perhaps the most effective measures to protect juror privacy will continue to be reassurances and explanations about voir dire inquiries, as well as proactive attention to the selection of questions which will increase the comfort level of jurors without drastically compromising important public or private interests. |
 |
|
|
Home ·
About the Firm ·
Attorney Directory ·
Practice Areas ·
News and Events ·
Contact Us · © 2006 Peacock Keller & Ecker, LLP, 70 East Beau Street, Washington, PA 15301 · Phone: (724) 222-4520 or in PA: 1-800-242-8897 · Fax: (724) 222-3318 · Terms and Conditions |
|