Two pieces today on various of the changes in Indiana jury rules that will take effect January 1, 2005.
"Jurors given green light to gab: Rule change allows discussions before deliberation" is the headline to this story today in the Munster Times. Some quotes:
Denying jurors the opportunity to sort through evidence with each other while it is still fresh in their minds does not make a lot of sense to Clay County Circuit Court Judge Ernest Yelton, who pushed for a change that will take place today.Making juries ananymous" is the headline to an editorial today in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette. Some quotes:Jurors in state criminal and civil cases now will be allowed to discuss evidence prior to deliberating, he said, as long as they are all present and don't arrive at a verdict until all the evidence is in. * * *
The proposal was approved this past fall by the Indiana Supreme Court after failing to win approval with 30 other jury changes that took effect at the beginning of 2003, Yelton said. The changes, which opened the door for jurors to take notes and ask questions during trials, grew out of a two-year study.
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. * * *This is not the first time the Journal Gazette has written about this rule change. An ILB entry from April 6, 2004 titled "Juror Secrecy in Indiana" quotes from a Journal Gazette editorial of that date. An ILB entry on the following day, April 7th, discusses the rule changes in detail and attempts to add context. Posted by Marcia Oddi at December 31, 2004 08:36 AMThe 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.