Proposal to keep Virginia jurors anonymous withdrawn

A proposal under consideration by the Virginia Supreme Court to keep juries anonymous in all criminal trials has been withdrawn.

A revised proposal to limit jury anonymity to cases where it is warranted has been posted on the high court’s Web site.

Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, said yesterday that the organization is pleased by the development.

“We understand wanting to protect jurors, but history tells us that justice only works when it is transparent,“ he said.

The identity of jurors traditionally has been an open part of court in Virginia and elsewhere. But last year, the General Assembly passed a law allowing jurors’ identifying information to be kept secret from all but the lawyers in a case if a judge finds good cause there is a likelihood of bribery, tampering, or physical injury or harassment to jurors.

The law directed the state Supreme Court to issue rules for its implementation.

In April, the high court’s advisory committee on rules proposed anonymous juries in all cases—though defense lawyers, consultants and defendants would learn juror identities unless, as in cases above, the judge found cause to keep them secret.

Expanding it to all cases, the committee reasoned, would avoid an implication to jurors that their identity had been kept confidential in a particular case because the defendant is dangerous.

But it also would have made Virginia unique in the country. Most states, experts say, simply give judges the power to keep the jurors’ identities secret when needed.

However, in a revised draft published for comment this month, the advisory committee’s proposal would not make all juries anonymous. Instead, it would allow a judge, upon a finding of good cause, to protect the identities of jurors when warranted. That is similar to the policy in many other states.

Among the groups opposing the May proposal to keep jurors anonymous in all criminal trials was the Virginia Press Association, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Virginia Coalition for Open Government. The ACLU promised to challenge the rule in court if adopted.

Said Willis: “We’re not yet ready to endorse the revised rules, but they are a dramatic improvement over the old ones. Our stance has shifted significantly, from outright opposition to an illegal proposal to seeking modifications to improve the new one.“