constitutionally you have the right to face the accuser and that includes not having secret juries.
This was inevitable, correctly so.
the jurrors are always advised they do not have to speak to the press.
If anything, every juror should have the right to say no ONCE and the media obligated to comply. If anything the “no contact/interviews” request could be part of the court record.
the right to face the accuser
the jurors are not the accusers.
the State would be the accuser
District Attorneys are not drawn form a pool of available citizens as far as I know
The problem isn’t that the names were released. The problem is that the people harassing or threatening them will not be prosecuted.
Juries are not accusers.
Constitutionally, you have a right to face your accuser “IN THE TRIAL”. That’s it. Jurors are not the accusers.
Attorneys vet the jurors. That’s when your team gets to select the right people. There is no legal or otherwise obligation for the jurors to be identified further than Jurist 6 et al.
This is all about intimidation. If the media swoops in on these folks, the message will be loud and clear, “You either rule as the Leftists want, or you will be found guilty and punished severely.”
This is a very chilling outcome for jurists, on a case that has had over the top intimidation as a factor since day one.
GEORGE ZIMMERMAN had the right to face his accusers, which BTW do not include the jury. Even if he had the right to face the jury, he did so in open court. Keep in mind that Zimmerman was the accused in the case. It wasn’t him requesting that the jury members’ identities be made pbulic.
There is no constitutional right for ANYONE to learn the identities of a jury. What possible good can come from publicly revealing their identites?
In a court of law, not at their front door.
And anyway, the jury is not the accuser.
That was a very dumb comment.
The accused in the case had zero desire to see the names of the jurors made public.
This makes your comment doubly foolish.
Even if the accused were to exercise his right to discover the identities of the jurors so his attorneys could investigate them for bias on appeal, there would be no need to make their names public.
This makes your comment trebly mindless.
This was inevitable, correctly so.
And here I thought that the defense team knew all the names of the jurors since the first day of voir dire.
Let me guess...Texas A&M Law School?
*Hook 'em*