The expectation that jury lists would be released promptly gave way to waits of weeks, even months, without explanation or findings of specific threats that justified them. The controlling precedent and practices gave way to evasions. In recent years, however, a number of federal judges in Boston have been less that forthcoming with jury lists. As unwelcome as my presence may have been to many, I have justified my temporary intrusion into their lives by the need recognized by the court itself to ensure accountability and public confidence in the system. Jurors provided great insights, and I’ve been deeply impressed by the sense of duty and seriousness of purpose they bring to their task. Even after the arrival of sophisticated databases and internet search engines provided possible phone numbers and email addresses or social media links for the jurors, I preferred to make my appeals in-person and on-the-door-step.Īs unwelcome as my presence may have been to many, I have justified my temporary intrusion into their lives by the need recognized by the court itself to ensure accountability and public confidence in the system.įor all the rejections, mostly polite - though some involved dogs, slamming doors, and being compared, unfavorably, to piranha and jackals - I often succeeded.
#Jydge gregory holder calls in jury trial
I would race to the home addresses of as many as 12 jurors all over eastern Massachusetts in hope of finding one juror, maybe two, whom I could ask - plead with - to talk about the trial and the verdict. Having that list in hand at the end of major trials, reporters from newsrooms around the city once competed to reach jurors. Like what you're reading? You can get the latest news Boston is talking about sent directly to your inbox with the WBUR Today newsletter. It's the only allowable justification for keeping the jurors anonymous. The precedent allows one exception: If a judge finds a specific threat to “the interests of justice,” such as “a credible threat of jury tampering” or “a risk of personal harm to individual jurors,” he or she can order their names sealed. Court proceedings are presumed to be public, and knowing who the jurors are “allows the public to verify the impartiality of key participants in the administration of justice, and thereby ensures fairness, the appearance of fairness and public confidence in that system.” In federal district court here in Boston, which belongs to the 1st Circuit, ruling precedent since 1990 is that juror names and addresses must be made public after the jury has rendered a verdict.
That meant we needed the jury list, and for that, we needed the judge’s approval. But most of the time, court officers kept the jurors from reporters as they dispersed, often marshaled out the back door.
#Jydge gregory holder calls in jury free
Answering their questions in a orderly setting, the judge counseled, might free the whole jury from further intrusions. A judge would occasionally suggest to jurors that one of them, logically the foreperson, might want to speak to the assembled reporters - the “horde” was an apt description at times. Not often - but much more often than now - jurors would agree to talk with us right after the verdicts. Reporters like me want to find out why jurors decide as they do and what evidence and testimony determines their verdict. At the start, dimes were essential, then useless. Over the years, some of my methods changed. WBUR's David Boeri led our efforts.įirst time I began tracking down jurors was in a federal racketeering trial of violent neo-Nazis in 1985. This significant gain for journalism followed WBUR’s challenge to several judges who had denied our requests on the grounds they would result in unacceptable invasion of jurors’ privacy. Court of Appeals ruled jurors’ names and addresses must be disclosed in a timely manner after a verdict is reached in federal trials. 18, WBUR won a victory in a campaign for transparency and accountability in federal court. (Courtesy David Boeri) This article is more than 3 years old. David Boeri, left of cameraman in the far center, at the trial of neo-Nazis in Seattle, Wa.
0 kommentar(er)
