Yesterday, Oregon's Supreme Court declared the circumstances under which a trial court may keep secret the names, addresses and employers of jurors. In this day when a name is the key to finding out so much about someone on Facebook, Twitter and other sources, the ruling is very important. The trial court justified anonymity by telling the lawyers that purpose of the jury selection process, "isn't about your knowledge of them (prospective jurors); it's about their knowledge of you and your case or type of case." The supreme court disagreed.
When anonymity is not the norm, instructing jurors NOT to disclose their names or employers can suggest that the court thinks the defendant is a very dangerous dude. Without some clear explanation to neutralize that impression, Oregon's Supreme Court held that the alleged scumball did not get a fair trial.
The court said that anonymity might be okay in some circumstances, such as if there is a history of juror intimidation or the defendant is linked with a dangerous group. First, however, trial court must identify those reasons and then do its best to minimize the negative inference from secrecy. A sufficient reason does NOT include blanket juror privacy from Facebook research. Or, in the words of the court. A good reason for anonymity is NOT a "generalized desire to protect the anonymity of all jurors in all cases in the interests of juror privacy."
Jury service is an important civic duty. We respect and honor those who serve. We must protect them if their service could imperil them. Yesterday, the court confirmed that only when jurors are at risk may they perform their service anonymously.
Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234
