A Newspaper Defends Naming Jurors

By: Jo Blaine: September 19, 2007

This New York Times article reports a conflict over a recent Connecticut newspaper's front page publication that identified jurors on a high profile murder case. Unless judges specifically order that jurors' identifications be withheld, no law prohibits making the information public. The judge in the reported case did not specify that jurors' anonymity be protected. Those on the Connecticut newspaper's staff responsible for the published information claim each juror understood what the article's drift would be.

Since the publication, one juror and one alternate have been excused after expressing concern for their safety. The New York Times reports that reason for such concern may be validated by the nature of the murder case. The jury must decide whether to sentence the defendant to life in prison or to death by lethal injection.

The possibility of passionate responses by members of the public combined with information exposing the jurors to that public drives the criticism of the Connecticut newspaper's conduct.

The defendant's lawyer, journalism professors, involved jurors, and now, even the newspaper's editor understand the better choice would have been to shield the jurors from the public, regardless of the legal green light to do otherwise.

A scenerio like this poses good question(s) for those entering the journalism field as there may be times when we'll have to gauge the appropriateness of releasing certain information. Even when our sources have given their permission, even when the law technically allows it, we have a responsibility to use discretion by considering probable dynamics that could be set in play by publicizing the information. Like the mental rule concerning plagiarism that suggests 'when in doubt, leave it out,' perhaps it's wise to exercise the same caution before reporting questionably sensitive information. The main question is: Is it worth it? If it's unethical, then by definition it should not be worth it to a news reporter. Potentially endangering others is an unethical move if made willingly. While your information might really add to the substance in your story, the downside could be more profound. Another question is how you might use the information alternately in a professionally ethical manner. The scenerio with the Connecticut paper allows for some creativity in understanding what alternatives might be. The names, hometowns and occupations of the jurors were shared. As suggested by a journalism professor referenced in the article, describing the jurors from a standpoint that preserves their anonymity but allows the public some general insight into the demographics of the jury is a possible way to use the information.