Public has right to know jurors' names, top Pa. court says

In a precedent-setting ruling Thursday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said the public has the right to learn the names of jurors.

The state's high court issued a 5-0 decision in which it said jurors' names should have been made public following the 2003 murder trial of Ligonier podiatrist Karl Long. At the conclusion of the trial, Westmoreland County Common Pleas Judge William J. Ober ruled the names of jurors were confidential and he would not disclose their identities.

The Tribune-Review and WPXI-TV appealed the decision and, after nearly four years of litigation, the state Supreme Court determined that public access to jurors' names is a constitutional right.

That right may not apply in every case, such as when a judge makes a finding on the record that keeping jurors' identities secret is "essential to preserve higher values," said the 20-page opinion written by Chief Justice Ralph Cappy. It cited concerns for juror safety, jury tampering or jury harassment.

In the ruling, the court said that making public the names of jurors has long been a staple of the court system.

"Disclosing jurors' names furthers the object of a fair trial to the defendant and gives assurances of fairness to society as a whole," Cappy wrote.

Jurors who served on the Long murder trial in August 2003 were identified several months later through the use of county payroll records. But the Supreme Court said the issue still needed to be resolved to avoid future questions about public access to court records.

Tribune-Review attorney David Strassburger said: "This is a victory for good government. Openness in all forms of government makes government better."

The ruling, according to legal experts, is precedent setting.

"This is a fairly significant edict," said Duquesne University School of Law professor Ken Gormley. "This basically is setting the stage for more openness to court proceedings."

Melissa Melewsky, the media law counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, said this is the first court ruling that spells out that access to jurors' names is a constitutional right.

"The most important thing it does is recognize the First Amendment right to know the names of people empaneled on a jury. Prior to this, that right was arguable at best," Melewsky said.

The court rejected the argument that jurors' addresses should be disclosed.

A public release of their addresses could hamper the jury system, Cappy wrote.

"I'm a bit concerned that there is no real way to verify the identities. There are names, but no addresses," Melewsky said.

The Long murder case ended after a two-week trial with a conviction of third-degree murder for the 1998 suffocation death of his 40-year-old wife, Elaine. Long was sentenced to five to 10 years in prison. Earlier this year, Long was denied parole.

Long did not intervene in the issue. The only opposition to the media's efforts came from the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, which argued that access to juror identities could damage the court process.

Ober, in denying access to the jury list, said he wanted to protect the panel's privacy and contended there were attempts by the victim's family to tamper with the jury prior to deliberations.

But the Supreme Court determined that Ober's refusal to disclose the jurors' names was "unwarranted" because there was no substantial evidence to support the judge's claims that jurors would be harassed and there would be an invasion of their privacy.

Ober relied on a local rule of court, in place for several years before the Long trial, which required jury lists to be sealed at the conclusion of a trial. It was a rule that was not followed by all of Westmoreland County's judges, and it now appears to have no lasting effect.

"That policy would be void. This case gets rid of that policy," Melewsky said.

Former Justice Sandra Schultz Newman and current Justice Cynthia A. Baldwin did not participate in the decision.