After succeeding in getting the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court to reaffirm the importance the press plays in the judicial system, two Cochise County reporters have been granted a hearing later this month to challenge the practice by some judges to refer to jurors by numbers instead of names and then forever sealing the names from the public.
In November, journalist Terri Jo Neff and online publisher David M. Morgan were informed by Chief Justice Robert Brutinel that he would remind judges across Arizona that media coverage of court proceedings “is necessary and important” and should be permitted access to courtrooms whenever possible while maintaining compliance with COVID-19 protocols.
Now, the two are utilizing the services of the First Amendment Clinic at the ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law to intervene in a now-complete murder trial to challenge the fact Judge Timothy Dickerson of the Cochise County Superior Court set aside the long-standing presumption in Arizona courts of fully public trials unless such open proceeding impinges on a defendant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.
Dickerson has set a Jan. 21 hearing on the matter, which stems from the prosecution of Roger Wilson, who was found guilty Oct. 1, 2020 of first-degree murder. The “secret” trial was conducted with numbers used in place of names of the prospective jurors and the empaneled jurors. And after the jurors returned their verdict, the judge sealed all documents which may have identified the jurors.
Wilson’s defense attorney strenuously objected to keeping the juror names secret throughout the trial, and it is an issue expected to come up on appeal.
Neff and Morgan have both reported on the Cochise County judicial system for several years. Neff’s coverage has even been recognized by the Arizona Press Club. But no reporters were allowed in-person access to the courtroom during Wilson’s trial, instead having to listen to often inaudible testimony and arguments by phone.
This meant there was no way of identifying who was involved in the deliberations which led to Wilson’s life sentence.
“As members of both the public and the press, Intervenors’ qualified right of access to criminal trials extends to juror name information in order to preserve the historically open role of juries in the criminal justice system and to promote a fair judicial process,” according to the motion to unseal the juror names.
Gregg P. Leslie, the executive director of the First Amendment Clinic at ASU, pointed out that local court practices often develop over time due to expediency in a single case, then become custom despite a lack of specific court rule on the subject. This raises confusion and concern when some judges conduct jury trials under dissimilar rules from other judges.
“We need consistent rules and practices about access to important parts of the criminal justice system,” he said. “There are certainly issues about jury tampering that arise on occasion, but the random nature of threats does not justify a mandatory system of secrecy when it comes to identifying jurors.”
Judges, Leslie noted, are in greater danger for the roles they play, “but we would never move to a system where the public couldn’t know the identity of the judges who preside over criminal cases.”
Yet beyond the issues of transparency and public access, Leslie says there is a bigger, long-term worry with keeping juror names secret unless absolutely necessary. And that involves the public losing faith in the integrity of the judicial system.
“Secrecy breeds corruption, or at the very least compromising the integrity of any system,” he noted. “People are willing to make improper compromises or take shortcuts when they know there is no accountability or responsibility. Having such important decisions made by unknown bodies is not just an inconvenience, but a real step toward undermining public trust.”
