Allows a court to preclude disclosure of jurors' names and addresses; repealer

Further this measure provides that the prosecutor may move within three days prior to the commencement of jury selection (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays) for an order directing that jurors shall not disclose their names or residential or business addresses. The court could permit the prosecutor to file such a motion thereafter, for good cause shown. At a hearing on the motion, the prosecutor would be required to show by clear and convincing evidence that such an order is necessary to protect against the likelihood of bribery, jury tampering or intimidation. In determining whether the prosecutor has sustained this burden, the court shall consider any relevant factors, including:

1. Whether the defendant or persons acting on the defendant's behalf have bribed, tampered with, or caused or attempted to cause physical injury to or harassment of a juror or prospective juror, or a witness or prospective witness, in another criminal action or proceeding or in the instant proceeding;

2. Whether defendant is a member of a group that has manifested an intention to harm or intimidate witnesses or jurors;

3. The seriousness of the charges against defendant;

4. The extent of pretrial publicity about the criminal action or proceeding.

If the court determines that a protective order should be issued, it shall direct that all jurors and prospective jurors be identified by some means other than their names and their residential and business addresses. To balance any adverse effect on the defendant of withholding the identities of jurors, this measure permits the court to enlarge the scope and duration of the parties' examination of prospective jurors to assure that the parties have sufficient information upon which to base the exercise of peremptory challenges and challenges for cause.

This measure further seeks to offset any prejudicial effect of selecting jurors on an anonymous basis by requiring the court to give precautionary instruction to the jury upon the defendant's request (ie. the fact that the jury was selected on an anonymous basis is not a factor from which any inference unfavorable to the defendant may be drawn).

Justification

In order to preserve our criminal justice system as impartial and fair, it is critical that a jury be able to render an objective decision. To that end, we have an obligation to protect jurors from recrimination for their decisions. Certainly jurors should not be expected to bear the burden of risking what may happen to them or their families should they render a guilty verdict. Explicit threats to jurors or even just the fear of retaliation could very well affect a jurors' ability to fairly and impartially issue a verdict.

When a serious threat to juror safety reasonably is found to exist, the law must allow for precautionary measures to be taken. This legislation would expressly do just that, by expanding current law to permit the court to not only preclude the residential and business addresses of jurors from disclosure, but their names as well.

Legislative history

2007-2008: S.615--Passed Senate 2005-2006: S.661--Passed Senate 2003-2004: S.775--Passed Senate 2001-2002: S.103--Passed Senate 1999-00: S.822--Passed Senate 1997-98: S.1134--Passed Senate 1995-96: S.5211--Passed Senate 1993-94: S.2628--Referred to Codes Committee 1991-92: S.4905--Referred to Codes Committee 1989-90: S.8436--Referred to Codes Committee

Fiscal implications

None.

Effective date

This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day after it shall have become law. next succeeding the date on which it shall have become law.