Pa. Supreme Court upholds access to jurors' identities

Reaffirming the long tradition of making public the names of jurors, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the First Amendment required access to juror identities in most cases - but not their addresses.

"Disclosing jurors' names furthers the objective of a fair trial to the defendant and gives assurances of fairness to society as a whole," Chief Justice Ralph J. Cappy wrote in a 20-page opinion.

The 5-0 decision came in a case that focused on the 2003 western Pennsylvania murder trial of a podiatrist accused of suffocating his wife.

The Westmoreland County trial judge withheld the names of jurors. The state Superior Court upheld that ruling, and two Pittsburgh news organizations appealed to the state's highest court.

What to do about juror identities is an issue of growing importance to judges nationwide as more high-profile trials play out on cable and network television - often with jurors interviewed as soon as the verdict is in.

Some judges have tried to shield jurors from media inquiries, worrying that jurors might feel harassed or that comments made by jurors in interviews might become issues on appeal.

Cappy said the trial judge noted that the case had been "widely publicized and sensationalized" and clearly was motivated by concern for jurors' privacy.

The news organizations - Tribune-Review Publishing Co. and WPXI Inc. - contended that revealing the jurors' names and addresses would bolster confidence in the judicial system.

Cappy wrote that juror names were generally available to the public as far back as colonial days, noting that the jurors in the Aaron Burr trial were listed in court records.

The practice continues today, he went on, as prospective jurors often are identified during jury selection in open court.

Disclosing the names, Cappy went on, "allows the public to participate in the judicial process and furthers the fairness and the appearance of fairness of the criminal trial, since the public can confirm the impartiality of the proceedings and the prospective jurors are more likely to tell the truth."

Cappy said that in some circumstances disclosing names could raise concerns for jury safety, tampering or harassment. Names could be withheld in some instances, he said, or perhaps until a case was decided.

But Cappy said such action "must be supported by specific findings demonstrating that there is a substantial probability that an important right will be prejudiced by publicity and that reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect that right."

He said the refusal to disclose jurors' identities in the Westmoreland County case was unwarranted.

He said there was no requirement for disclosing juror addresses. That, he said, is "not a constitutional imperative."

Cappy was joined in his opinion by Justices Ronald D. Castille, Thomas G. Saylor, J. Michael Eakin and Max Baer.

David Strassburger, an attorney for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review newspaper, said the ruling established a "uniform right of access" under the First Amendment to juror names in all counties across Pennsylvania.

"It's a pretty good day for the media," he said.