Ohio high court weighs newspaper's bid to view juror questionnaires
By The Associated Press
09.19.02
Printer-friendly page
COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in a case pitting a newspaper's First Amendment rights against a defendant's right to a fair trial.
At issue is the public's right to view questionnaires filled out by jurors and to receive the jurors' names and addresses.
The Akron Beacon Journal had requested the information in the October 2000 trial of Denny Ross, charged with the 1999 rape and murder of Hannah Hill, 18, of Akron.
Judge Jane Bond of Summit County Common Pleas Court denied the request and sealed the names and questionnaires. Jurors' privacy should be protected because of the "extraordinary level of pretrial publicity," Bond said.
A mistrial was later declared in the Ross case after the jury foreman told Bond a juror supported the verdict only because he was in a hurry to leave.
The newspaper then asked the 9th Ohio District Court of Appeals to order Bond to release the names and questionnaires.
The court ruled in August 2001 that the newspaper could have the questionnaires but could not obtain the names until the case was closed. Summit County appealed that ruling.
Sandy Rubino, an assistant Summit County prosecutor, argued that protecting jurors' privacy is necessary to ensure the jury's independence and integrity.
Ordering the release of the information could endanger a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial, he said yesterday.
Some justices questioned whether jurors have any expectation of privacy.
"When you fill out that form, presumably you know it's going to be disclosed to someone," Justice Paul Pfeifer said.
But Rubino questioned that, arguing the right to a fair trial outweighed the newspaper's right to see the questionnaires.
The rights of the accused "supersede the right of immediate access by the press," he said. "My rights are paramount."
One option for the court is to order the trial judge to hold a hearing on the issue, which was not done originally. Rubino questioned the relevance of such a hearing in the Ross case.
Chief Justice Thomas Moyer said the court must consider the issue in light of future cases.
Karen Lefton, a lawyer representing the newspaper, compared the questionnaires to the oral questions lawyers ask during jury selection. Such proceedings are public.
Lefton also argued that access to such questionnaires should be granted as soon as they are filled out and in the court's hands.
"When that information becomes known to the court, it becomes known to the public," she said.
Lefton said she would be satisfied with either a ruling ordering the release of the information or a ruling ordering a trial judge to hold a hearing on the issue.
Related
Federal judge won't make juror names public in Abner Louima retrial
Meanwhile, critics say Wisconsin county's rule sealing juror names follows trend toward 'secret justice.'
09.09.02
N.J. high court explains ruling upholding ban on media contact with jurors
Majority says prosecutors might get unfair advantage in rabbi's retrial if they hear news reports of what jurors in original trial thought of their case.
07.24.02
Missouri high court: Jurors' names should be public
Justices say names may stay secret only in cases where a judge finds a compelling reason.
01.02.03
Court vindicates public defender who balked at sealing of juror questionnaires
California appeals court says First Amendment trumps privacy concerns, and that records should be open to the public.
12.28.00
