[frog in a pot]

The courts have determined there is generally a qualified 1stA right of access to information about jurors; however, some courts and state legislatures believe the right does not apply in cases involving gang activity or other situations in which the personal safety of jurors may be at issue.

Obviously, the court here had the discretion to withhold personal information of the jurors and did so for some months clearly out of concern for the safety of the members.

How can anyone reasonably argue the national outcry, the marches and vandalism/destruction, the constant drumbeat of warnings and threats from various national organizations and public figures published prior to and after the verdict, should not serve to extend that protection?

What possible government interest or right of the public will be served by publishing the addresses of the members who voted for acquittal?

[MeshugeMikey]

The only rationalization ....for this inane action ..is to Humiliate...and Intimidate.

Look for Revrunt Sharptons PRAISING the judges thoughtless VILE action SOON

[longtermmemmory]

This judge is explicitly anti-second amendment. Judges despise citizen self help. It means judges are not needed.