« Environment - Editorial on proposed "Wells mega-farm" | Main | Ind. Decisions - Three rulings today from the Court of Appeals »

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Courts - Juror problems in federal trial of former Illinois Governor Ryan; thoughts on Indiana jurors

The Chicago Tribune reports today:

A federal judge on Monday excused two jurors from former Gov. George Ryan's corruption trial after the Tribune uncovered that both had apparently concealed arrest records during jury selection six months ago.

Following more than five hours of closed-door discussions with lawyers, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer said she hopes to replace the two jurors with alternates and restart the deliberations from scratch.

The judge said she had been conducting brief interviews of some of the jurors but still had to question additional jurors before she would make a final decision on how to proceed with the historic trial.

Pallmeyer made it clear she hopes to avoid a mistrial, referring to the "very significant investment, both public and private," that has gone into the marathon trial of Ryan and lobbyist Lawrence Warner.

In a related story, the Tribune reports how it discovered the juror problems:
After a 5 1/2-month trial and eight days of jury deliberations, the Chicago Tribune uncovered public records last week indicating that two jurors in the federal trial of former Gov. George Ryan gave false answers on their jury questionnaires.

Both jurors had checked boxes on pretrial questionnaires indicating that they had never been charged with a crime, but the Tribune found public records that appeared to contradict those answers.

Those jurors were dismissed from the trial Monday by U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer.

While the information had the potential to disrupt the trial, Tribune editors recognized it could be even more damaging if it were revealed after the jury had reached its verdict. Nationally, other cases have been overturned on appeal when it was discovered after the verdict that jurors had been untruthful.

Because of this, the newspaper went to Chief Judge Charles Kocoras as soon as possible, both to continue the reporting on the story and to inform court officials of the records it had discovered. * * *

Reporters frequently interview jurors after a case ends and the jurors are dismissed from duty. In preparation for a verdict, Tribune reporter Ray Gibson was checking computer databases for information about the jurors. He was not looking for criminal histories but was interested in the jurors' political affiliations.

On the first screen of links to records for one juror, Gibson came across a 1995 felony conviction for aggravated DUI. The charge indicated the man had prior DUIs as well.

Police reporter David Heinzmann then located court and criminal records for the man, and Gibson and federal courts reporter Matt O'Connor matched information from those records with the answers given by the juror on his jury questionnaire. By Wednesday night, it was clear to the reporters and their editors that the records indicated that it was the same man. * * *

On Friday, Tribune reporters discovered a second juror, a woman, who could be linked through public records to an alias. Someone with that alias faced drug and other charges but was not convicted, records show. Again, the reporters went to the chief judge Friday afternoon as part of their reporting.

For more on the "how" see this Tribune Blog entry.

Also of interest is this story headlined "Spotlight can be uncomfortable for jurors." Some quotes:

The white-hot spotlight of the American judicial system can be uncomfortable, with lawyers, judges and sometimes the media prying into difficult and embarrassing moments. But defendants aren't alone in the glare. From the moment a jury summons arrives, potential jurors find their own histories under scrutiny.

"Has any member of your immediate family or a very close friend ever been the victim of a crime?" asks a typical juror questionnaire. "Have you ever been a party to any lawsuit?"

Experts say most jurors, facing threat of perjury, try to be honest. Others, they say, may be too embarrassed to answer fully, or think it doesn't matter. "I think some truly don't understand the gravity of the responses that they're giving. And others are being evasive, and we have no idea which it is," said Duke University Law School professor Neil Vidmar.

If they do have something in their past, "they may have said, `That's over and done with,'" he said. Officers of the court seldom know when a juror has stopped being truthful.

The slippery issue of juror honesty, one that has occupied legal scholars from university campuses to the U.S. Supreme Court, was cast into sharp relief Monday when U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer dismissed two jurors amid deliberations over the fate of former Illinois Gov. George Ryan. A Tribune investigation found they may have lied on juror questionnaires.

Impact of Juror Secrecy. These Tribune stories caused me to look back at prior ILB entries on juror secrecy. The Tribune was checking out the jurors for a post-trial story when it uncovered the crimonal history information, using the juror list, and the questionaires they filled out. What if this information had not been available to the Tribune? As reported above:
While the information had the potential to disrupt the trial, Tribune editors recognized it could be even more damaging if it were revealed after the jury had reached its verdict. Nationally, other cases have been overturned on appeal when it was discovered after the verdict that jurors had been untruthful.
But juror questionaires and sometimes even the identity of jurors is not always available during a trial, and sometimes may be sealed even after the trial. In this entry from Dec. 31, 2004, the ILB quoted from a now no-longer-available Fort Wayne Journal Gazette editorial:
An Indiana Supreme Court rule that takes effect next week goes too far in protecting juror identity. The justices may have meant well when writing it, but the rule to forever seal juror identities places a shroud on a system that works best when all of the participants are open to inspection from the outside. * * *

The juror privacy provision does not restrict information obtained in open court. However, in Allen County and some other counties, jurors are referred to publicly by number, not name, thus further muddling public access. * * *

The new rules were designed to protect jurors from harassment. Juror safety is vital to the judicial system, but not to the subordination of the public?s greater interests.

Why should anyone care about this issue? The new jury privacy decree affects journalists, historians, advocates, researchers and anyone else who may want to ask jurors how a decision was reached. It is conceivable that jury tampering or a previously unknown connection between a juror and key player may not be revealed until an outside investigator lifts the veil. Undoing private deceit brings about reform and keeps down public cynicism and apathy.

The ruling illustrates an astonishing lack of prudence on the state Supreme Court?s behalf for shoving the court?s machinery into the shadows where only the chosen few get to question efficiency and equity. Jurors may be private citizens, but they dispense justice ? a public act with societal consequences.

No matter how good the intention, the jury privacy rule has an undesirable consequence: A cloak now covers a system that thrives best when transparent.

Hoosiers would be best served if the legislative and judicial branches work together on issues of public access to the courts.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 28, 2006 09:50 AM
Posted to Courts in general