ShareThis Page
The Long jury list: Illumination at last |

The Long jury list: Illumination at last

| Sunday, December 7, 2003 12:00 a.m

Finally, some jurors from the Karl Long murder trial have shared with the Trib’s readers their insights — despite a Westmoreland County judge’s continuing efforts to shield their identities.

Regrettably, the jurors’ valuable input, freely offered, comes three months after Dr. Long was convicted of third-degree murder for the suffocation of his wife. Yet even now, their comments shed light on how justice was served in this high-profile case.

Judge William J. Ober hasn’t released the jury list and still says he acted to protect jurors because he believed there was an attempt at intimidation. Without access to the court list of jurors, it took a Trib reporter’s sleuthing through juror payment records to deduce their identities.

And when that reporter contacted the jurors — surprise! — he found some of them were quite willing to answer questions. The jurors who spoke to us said they didn’t feel intimidated nor targeted by purported tampering.

Regardless, if a juror felt uncomfortable talking to the press after the trial, a simple “no comment” would suffice. Instead, Judge Ober took it upon himself to eliminate that option.

Interestingly, some of the jurors, themselves , thought it important to speak up. And for good reason.

At issue isn’t merely one jury at one trial. It’s the public’s right to know who sits on any jury in any case in Westmoreland County, and to learn what those jurors wish to say afterward.

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.