By Jean Maneke

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- The week of April 29 to May 3 has been designated Juror Appreciation Week in the state by the Missouri Supreme Court.

It is right that citizens in this state should pause to recognize the important role played by those who are drafted, sometimes unhappily, to make those tough decisions that help our wheels of justice turn.

But it is equally right that citizens take note of the fact that this same court is planning to enact rules that will make secret the names of citizens who will serve in the role of jurors -- a significant change in a long-standing judicial tradition in Missouri.

The Missouri Supreme Court, effective Jan. 1, will close to the public the names of jurors and potential jurors in criminal cases as well as questionnaires completed by members of a jury panel. This information will continue to be open, however, to the attorneys for the defendants in each case.

In announcing Juror Appreciation Week, the court said that serving as a juror is "one of the most significant civic duties granted to citizens." Chief Justice Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr. is quoted as saying, "The idea that a jury of our peers can be depended upon to determine the truth in disputes is deeply rooted in our history, our notion of justice and our sense of national identity."

Indeed, the chief justice is right in pointing out that an important element is that the system depends on jurors being our "peers." A criminal trial, in fact, begins with the defendant having a right to ensure that those who will decide the trial's outcome are indeed his or her "peers" through written answers to questionnaires, through oral answers to questions raised by attorneys and by knowing that the court cannot systematically exclude any specific group of citizens from jury duty.

The role of the public in this equation is that of watchdog. The courts, of course, serve to review the trial and appellate process. But if that is the only cross-check, then the average citizen must depend on the legal system to police itself.

It is not a negative reflection on that system to say that this is not an effective or wise method. It is critical in order to maintain trust in the system that the public have the ability to monitor the trial process, including the process of who serves on criminal juries.

Defense attorneys are only interested in obtaining a fair and impartial panel to hear their cases. The public interest is that the jury panel includes those from all walks of life "without exclusion of persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or economic status," as mandated by state statute. The Supreme Court's proposed rule ensures that the public will not be able to monitor this mandate.

This decision by the Missouri Supreme Court is not prudent. If its goal is to protect citizens from threat of harm, it does not accomplish that goal, because this information will still be given to the criminals.

The best way for the Supreme Court to recognize the role of jurors in the state would be to revoke this proposed rule and restore the current system. This is critical to ensure the public will continue to trust the system and know that all citizens, and not just a small segment of society, are being singled out to serve this public need.

Jean Maneke is the Missouri Press Association's legal counsel.