The Anonymity of Juries

Jury's anonymity The US criminal justice system has traditionally allowed judges, prosecutors, and counselors to recognize the identity and address of the jury. In the US v. Burns litigation, an unprecedented court of court court decides to use anonymous juries, a tradition that began to be infringed, and a highly public criminal trial on the number of criminals in infamous organizations in New York City did. Since "Barnes", federal prosecutors in New York demanded and acquired anonymous jurors in many similar cases.

The first fully anonymous jury in the history of this country was born until 1977 when the Declaration of Independence was signed more than 200 years later. This case is a US incident to the Barnes case - Leroy ("Niki") Barnes, leader of a massive drug trafficking network and a criminal trial on the plot of 14 co-defendants and narcotics and gun infringement. It will be the subject of the trial. The US Second Circuit Court of Appeals believes that this measure is necessary because the jury maintains the use of anonymous juries and the jury is afraid that retaliation prevents the rehearing process.

This white paper evaluates the use of anonymous jurors and the first press and common law rights to qualify for the jury's name and address. Both the first amendment and the common law provide a powerful (qualified) right to obtain this information, as shown below. As anonymity becomes more common, this problem will be more important for news media members. Although this term has an intuitive meaning, the court is still trying to determine the exact composition of anonymous juries.

Despite an increase in anonymous juries, members of the news media have general rights to challenge the court's decision to dismiss the jury's name and address. In presenting these challenges, the media usually insists that they have the first amendment and common law rights to the information they need. Most of the courts considering this issue believe that there is a qualified right to obtain the jury's name and address, as shown below. In the case of the Virginia state case in the Richmond newspaper, the US Supreme Court granted that the general public and the press have qualified first amendment rights to participate in criminal trials.

In the common law in the UK, the jury consists of 12 people. The Supreme Court ruled that figure against Patton v. (1930). In this case, as warranted by the Constitution, the jury trial was ruled to require 'a basic element recognized in the country and the UK when the Constitution is passed.' And the jury's ruling should be consistent (ie, all 12 juries must agree).