Court: Arizonans don't have right to know jurors' names

Arizonans are not entitled to know the names of jurors deciding criminal cases.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a claim by the publisher of the Cochise County Record that the public has a First Amendment right to know the names not only of who is sitting on a jury but also of those being considered to serve.

The justices provided no reason for declining to consider the case.

That leaves in place a 2022 decision by the Arizona Supreme Court rebuffing the claim by publisher David Morgan that if judges want to shield juror names from the public, they first have to make specific findings, case by case. Instead, the presumption remains that juror names are not public, but that judges in Arizona — again, on a case-by-case basis — may release the names.

There was no immediate response from Morgan.

A 2007 law says juror names “shall not be released unless specifically required by law or order ordered by the court.’’

A dozen years later, judges in two criminal trials in Cochise County decided to use “innominate’’ juries, meaning one where jurors are publicly identified only by number but whose names are provided to the parties.

Local news

Take our latest Tucson News Quiz!

In both cases, the public was permitted to attend jury selection and the trials. But the judges refused the request by Morgan and Terri Jo Neff, who writes for the Arizona Independent, to disclose the names publicly.

Justice Ann Scott Timmer, writing the 2022 Arizona Supreme Court ruling, said there are potential negative effects of jurors having their names available for publication. She rejected claims that denying the information interferes with the public’s ability to ensure trials are conducted fairly.

“Anyone can sit in the courtroom during a criminal trial and observe the juror screening process, including voir dire examinations,’’ she said, referring to the part of the process where prospective jurors are questioned by attorneys about their backgrounds and potential biases.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

Timmer said they can observe when an attorney challenges a prospective juror “for cause,’’ meaning some specific bias or reason.

“Accessing jurors’ names would not significantly add to the public’s ability to assure itself that voir dire is fairly conducted or to check the courts in disregarding established standards for jury selection,’’ she said.

Gregg Leslie of the First Amendment Clinic at the Arizona State University College of Law, representing Morgan before the U.S. Supreme Court, told the justices there are prior U.S. Supreme Court rulings that make it clear the public’s right to access criminal trials is not limited to simply sitting in the courtroom.

“A proper review of this court’s prior First Amendment right of access cases demonstrates that access to information is at the heart of the right,’’ Leslie said. “The ‘scrutiny’ that the Arizona Supreme Court recognized as part of the right cannot logically include complete secrecy of the identities of those involved in the process.’’

But the Arizona Attorney General’s Office argued successfully there were good reasons for the U.S. Supreme Court to stay out of the fray and leave the lower court ruling intact.

“Regrettably, tribunals — judges and juries alike — are subject to attack and intimidation by one or the other side of our increasingly polarized and caustic political climate and society in general,’’ wrote Jeffrey Sparks, deputy solicitor general for the Attorney General’s Office.

Sparks said judges know that when they seek the job.

“Jurors, however, are compelled upon pain of legal retribution to take on the role,’’ he said.

Arizona’s decision to protect jurors both during and after their service “services the overarching goal of fairness in criminal proceedings by assuaging trepidatious jurors’ legitimate fears of the consequences of participation in the public arena,” he said.