I have a vague memory that this was ruled a right. A right to a public trial. A right to be confronted by your accusers. And a right to a jury by peers.
Somehow that got twisted into the names of the jurors being public information. It depends on the state though, and maybe the city.
Anyone can go to a trial and watch. So the jurors are visible to anyone who wants to see them. A public trial after all. In a big case like Trump, the number of people in the courtroom is limited out of necessity.
There have also been rulings that cameras are allowed in court. There are many well know trials that millions of people watched on TV. This includes shots of the jury.
I have heard of cases where the jurors were hidden behind a barrier where they could not be seen. I think that got challenged in court, but I don't know how the ruling went.
"Surely that opens them up to bribery or intimidation? "
Yes it does. And it's happened before. Although sometimes they are sequestered. They stay in hotels during the duration of the trial, with no contact with the outside. OJ Simpson recently died. If I remember right, the jury was sequestered in his trial, which was a really long trial.
It depends on where you are. Not all states identify jurors.
Many years ago, I was on a jury in New York State. None of us were identified by name at any time, from juror selection through the trial.. We were addressed by our juror number, for example, "Prospective juror 79" (during selection) or "Juror #4" (during trial).
More recently, I know someone who was a juror in Georgia State, and their names were always used, making that information public.
In some controversial and well-publicized trials, the judge may rule that juror's names not be revealed... for safety and security reasons.
Yes, you're right, that doesn't make any sense. I just naturally assume that in order for a system where one is tried by a jury of one's peers, the anonymity of the jurors would be paramount. I don't live in the U. S., so I don't know how their system works, but if this is a feature of it, then it really needs to be overhauled. This is just not acceptable, it's a serious weakness.
Opinion
22Opinion
If I'm thinking of the right trial, this particular case is unusual for keeping them anonymous; it's something usually reserved for mob trials, when they might wake up with a horse's head in their bed. The information made public is general, it could describe a thousand people.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/izE58iNVBwg
America loves to do everything by their own book and think they're smarter than everyone else.
But I don't know if that's a normal protocol, but with high profile cases like this, word gets around.
Do you guys have forced jury duty in the UK? How do they select jurors there?
That's not always the case. Much of it depends on state and federal rules as well as a judge's administration of the case.
For instance, in Trump's Stormy Daniels case, his jurors are anonymous for their protection from the MAGA psychos although, in their idiocy, many provided enough information to self-identify.
But, one reason why jurors may be identified is to keep the trial fair. For instance, generations ago (and perhaps even today), if a trial is against a Black guy and there's an all-White jury in the Deep South, the chances of this guy getting a fair trail are not good. (That's what "To Kill A Mockingbird" was about.) By knowing the demographics or background of the jury, the defense may have grounds for an appeal.
So, it all has to be balanced.
It's bait, I think. Like "I dare you to get caught trying to bribe or intimidate the jury" kind of thing. That makes the whole thing a bazillion times easier if they can add jury tampering to the evidence (and charges).
Of course that only applies to low level criminals. For high profile ones like Trump, whose wish to intimidate is understood without him saying anything, and with plenty of mentally unwell followers to grant that wish, that tends to be when a judge will require the jury to remain annonnymous.
England was a shit hole filled with tyrants (not much has changed). As a result in America the accused has a right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury and has the right to confront his accusers that bear witness against him and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and to have assistance of counsel for his defense so on and so forth. Everything is suppose to be out in the open for everyone to see, not in some dungeon or tower of some king. An innominate jury can be requested but it's usually only for serious criminals like drug king pins that will kill a jury members entire family if they don't get the verdict they seek. Under any normal circumstances, it needs to be public.
Basically an excellent but difficult question. My instinct tells me to be very careful with the identification of jurors in general, but I still have no idea of what would be the best course of action.
On hand there's the matter of the juror's security, privacy, and danger of being bribed or threatened, but on the other hand it may be considered fair for the accused to know more about the people judging them, and on what evidence. In both cases there does not seem to exist a failsafe procedure. Case sensitive maybe?
In this particular case the prosecution needs Trump's team to identify the jury so if it looks like they're losing Biden's pet judge - look it up, he's a well known donor to Biden's campaign and so hardly "impartial" - can shout "mistrial", dismiss them without prejudice and prevent Trump getting out onto the campaign trail for another six to ten weeks.
Now I'm not a Trump fan. I'm not a Biden fan either. This trial is, however, blatantly election interference. The charges are a joke because the evidence is unreliable - I'm not saying he's innocent, but guilty beyond reasonable doubt is highly unlikely from what's been disclosed so far. Any impartial prosecution team should never have gone ahead with this case, but we know the prosecutor is also a Biden supporter.
They are corrupt.
Because the American NEWS is 98% leftist illuminati
and the media is controlled by 6 companies, which i believe all the news is owned by 3
"Just 37 years ago, there were 50 companies in charge of most American media. Now, 90% of the media in the United States is controlled by just six corporations: AT&T, CBS, Comcast, Disney, Newscorp and Viacom. This means that just 232 media executives are calling the shots for the vast majority of the information we are presented with, controlling a total Big Six net worth of over $430 billion."
I have not been paying too much to it but yeah that seems a bit stupid. When i sat on the juror, the only thing anyone knew was our full names, and that was just to make sure no one knew us that was involved on the case.
The defendant and all lawyers are allowed to know our names of course but they know nothing else. The USA have always had some stupid laws and what with their gun problem, jurors are liable to get bumped off.
I have always thought that trials in the USA are biased especially in high profile cases in the past, no doubt jurors have been bought off.
The reason they're doing it now is because the media knows that Trump supporters are better behaved than lefties. If Trump were a media sweetheart, they would be trying to intimidate the jurors into. The media in this country is extremely unethical, so this is an intimidation tactic they can employ. They did something similar with the Chauvin and Rittenhouse trials
As for finished cases; court records like that are matters of public record.
in a famous case or case or famous person, find 12 people who live in caves or lie about not paying attention to current events.
One would hope they would choose people who know someting about laws and politics.
A jury is 12 people trying to decide which side has the better lawyer.
Because Americans don't think things through. What else can you say about a nation that gives everyone the right to carry firearms?
The talking heads just need something to talk about. Cuz I have nothing genuine to say on their own
It does seem strange, no one really knows who the jury are, fairly random selections. Why you would want to name the poor sods on jury duty
You answered your own question. The jury system for high profile trials in the USA is bullshit. It does exactly what you say; opens up every juror for harassment, threats, bribery and a lack of safety.
They'll figure it out maybe after 200 years, they still be learning.
Yes. The attorneys have already gone through their social media BEFORE they seat them. It's flawed through n through
u They’re really all Brits and all Britt jury here
Yeah that info should be between them and the court only.
Because the media runs everything in the USA.
You can also add your opinion below!
