ShareThis Page
State Supreme Court says Karl Long jurors’ names are public |

State Supreme Court says Karl Long jurors’ names are public

The Associated Press
| Thursday, May 31, 2007 12:00 a.m

HARRISBURG — The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that jurors’ names should be made public — but not in all cases — and that there is no constitutional right to learn their addresses.

The 5-0 decision overturned a Westmoreland County judge who had withheld the names of the jurors who convicted podiatrist Karl Long of suffocating his wife.

“Disclosing jurors’ names furthers the objective of a fair trial to the defendant and gives assurances of fairness to society as a whole,” wrote Chief Justice Ralph Cappy. “But the average citizens’ concern that the media will be camped out on their front lawn and fear of physical harm can be alleviated.”

The court said judges can seal the names of jurors if they make “on the record findings” that show it would “preserve higher values” — juror safety, jury tampering or juror harassment, for example.

In the 2003 trial of Long, Cappy wrote, Judge Jay Ober was motivated by unsubstantiated concerns for the jurors’ privacy, and that did not meet the newly articulated standard.

“General concerns for harassment or invasion of privacy would exist in almost any criminal trial,” Cappy wrote. “Rather, the closure must be supported by specific findings demonstrating that there is a substantial probability that an important right will be prejudiced by publicity and that reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect the right.”

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.