It's Time to Let Jurors Be Anonymous
Internet age calls for better privacy protection
By Nick McMaster, Newser Staff
Posted Nov 13, 2010 2:54 PM CST
A courtroom sketch of jurors in the Rob Blagojevich trial. Because it was a federal trial, they were given anonymity.   (AP Photo/Verna Sadock)

(Newser) – Federal judges can give jurors anonymity, but state judges around the nation don't have that option in most cases. "For judges hearing high-profile cases, this lack of juror anonymity can present serious problems," writes law student Steve Cohen of his home state of New York. The rule raises the risk of jury tampering and intimidation, and exposes jurors to the media hordes.

"No right in the US Constitution guarantees defendants access to juror information," he writes at City Journal. Given the important work they do, it's only fair to give jurors some semblance of privacy protection in an age where the Internet makes it simple to track a person down, even with only a name to go on. "Give judges the discretion to allow anonymous juries—a power that federal judges enjoy and use responsibly."

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Its Time to Let Jurors Be Anonymous is...
2%
1%
4%
1%
83%
8%
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 2 of 6 comments
JoeQ
Nov 13, 2010 7:51 PM CST
Jurors should be prohibited from talking to the press for some time period after a trial verdict. The media spotlight is too tempting to people.
frdmringstrue
Nov 13, 2010 6:11 PM CST
Judged by a jury of your peers. How do you know if they're your peers, if they're anonymous?