State Supreme Court reverses itself on jurors' names

ST. LOUIS -- Just days before a new rule keeping secret the names of jurors in criminal cases was to take effect statewide, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed itself and decided jurors' names should not be secret after all.

In a ruling issued Tuesday, the state Supreme Court said jurors' names "shall be presumptively open to the public" and may only be kept secret in cases where a judge finds a compelling reason. The new rule is binding in local courts.

The reversal came after several media outlets wrote about the new rule, some officially protesting it, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Wednesday.

On Dec. 11, six of the seven Supreme Court justices met with newspaper editors from three of the state's largest newspapers and representatives of the Missouri Press Association. The meeting, in a courtroom in Jefferson City, lasted about 45 minutes.

Judge Gene Hamilton of Calloway County, chair of the court's committee on criminal procedure, which had drafted the secrecy rule, also attended. That 11-member committee consisted of judges, prosecutors, a defense attorney, a public defender, an assistant attorney general and a law professor.

The idea to seal jurors' identities in criminal cases came after an appeals court reversed the St. Louis County murder conviction of Ellen Reasonover and ordered her freed from prison in 1999, Missouri Supreme Court spokeswoman Beth Riggert has said.

Jurors sought for comment

Some national television shows searched for the names of the original jurors to interview them about their reaction to the appellate ruling, she said.

Because the court file had been sealed, the juror list was not made public. However, the realization that jurors could be contacted led a St. Louis County court official to write to the Supreme Court, expressing concerns about jurors' names being made public.

At the meeting with the court this month, media representatives told the judges the court had overreacted. They argued the secrecy rule violated U.S. Supreme Court rules requiring courts to act in public.

"Courts are supposed to act in the open," said Joe Martineau, an attorney for the Post-Dispatch. "They're not supposed to dispense secret justice. And jurors are supposed to be accountable."

Martineau said, "Obviously, there are instances when it's appropriate to keep names secret, such as gangland trials and trials of drug kingpins."

But when it comes to other cases, Martineau asked, "What's inappropriate about a reporter calling a juror to find out why a decision was made? The juror doesn't have to talk to us."

In its new rule, the Supreme Court reiterated jury questionnaires shall not be made public, other than to the parties involved, unless there's a showing of good cause.

The identities of those who sit on grand juries are not public. However, the identities of jurors in civil cases routinely are public. The rule does not change those practices. It also does not affect any information heard in open court.

"This new order is a more balanced approach," said Doug Crews, executive director of the Missouri Press Association. "Jury lists are presumed to be open to the public. But a judge can close them if there is a compelling reason. That's a good balance."