Of course not.
In the article itself, it brings up a serious issue: An NJ lawyer thinks the sealed grand jury testimony should be unsealed because of “historical significance”, while those opposing it maintain there are children and grandchildren of the original jurors who may be impacted by it. It would certainly set a precedence that should allow anyone to opt out of jury duty in the future.
I now understand and I absolutely agree.
In these times it is a dangerous precedent.