Commonwealth v. Long
592 Pa. 42, 922 A.2d 892 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a qualified right of public access to the names of impaneled jurors in a criminal case, but not their addresses, under the 'experience and logic' test; a common law right of access does not extend to juror names and addresses.
Facts:
- Karl Long was prosecuted for the murder of his wife.
- Jury selection for Karl Long's trial took place from July 28 through July 30, 2003.
- During jury selection, potential jurors were referred to only by number, and the proceedings were open to the public, with reporters from WPXI, Inc. and Tribune-Review Publishing Company present.
- During the trial (August 4-20, 2003), reporters from WPXI, Inc. and Tribune-Review Publishing Company attempted to obtain the names and addresses of the impaneled jury through members of the court’s judicial staff.
- On August 15, 2003, the trial court expressed concerns about incidents involving the victim's family staring at jurors and about press requests for juror names and addresses, tentatively considering sequestering the jury.
- On August 20, 2003, while the jury was deliberating, WPXI, Inc. and Tribune-Review Publishing Company requested a hearing on their right to the jurors’ names and addresses.
Procedural Posture:
- Karl Long was prosecuted for murder in the trial court (Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County).
- The trial court denied WPXI, Inc. and Tribune-Review Publishing Company's petitions to disclose juror names and addresses on December 31, 2003.
- WPXI, Inc. and Tribune-Review Publishing Company appealed the trial court's decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
- The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the First Amendment right of access did not compel disclosure of juror names and addresses, and that no common law right of access applied because the information was not part of the public record.
- WPXI, Inc. and Tribune-Review Publishing Company filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which granted review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, or the common law provide a right of access to the names and addresses of impaneled jurors in a criminal case?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Cappy
Yes, the First Amendment provides a qualified right of access to the names of impaneled jurors, but not their addresses. No, neither the common law nor Article I, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides such a right. Regarding the common law right of access, the court determined that a list of impaneled jurors' names and addresses does not constitute a 'public judicial document.' This information is not entered into evidence, is not required to be kept by the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, does not become part of the official record, and is not information upon which a judge bases a decision. Therefore, the common law right of access, which applies to public judicial records, does not compel disclosure of juror names and addresses. For the First Amendment claim, the court applied the 'experience and logic' test from Press-Enterprise II. Under the 'experience' prong, the court found that historically, jurors' names were generally known because juries were selected from small, known communities and were 'called' forward in public. While the jury system evolved, the tradition supported public disclosure of names. However, evidence supporting the historical disclosure of jurors' addresses was found to be circumspect at best. Under the 'logic' prong, the court weighed the value of openness in criminal trials against the need to encourage jury service. It concluded that disclosing jurors' names significantly enhances the fairness and appearance of fairness of the criminal trial, allowing the public to confirm impartiality and encouraging prospective jurors to be truthful. In contrast, disclosing jurors' addresses does not significantly advance these functions and could deter citizens from jury service due to legitimate privacy concerns, fear of harassment, or physical harm. Thus, the First Amendment provides a qualified right of access to jurors' names but not their addresses. This right is not absolute; a trial court can deny access if it makes specific, on-the-record findings demonstrating that 'closure is essential to preserve higher values' (e.g., juror safety, jury tampering, harassment) and is 'narrowly tailored' to serve that interest. General concerns about harassment or invasion of privacy, as articulated by the trial court in this case, were deemed unsubstantiated and insufficient to overcome the presumption of openness for juror names. The court also briefly noted that Article I, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution does not provide a greater right of access in this context.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of public and press access to juror information in Pennsylvania, establishing a qualified First Amendment right to juror names but firmly denying access to addresses. It reinforces the application of the U.S. Supreme Court's 'experience and logic' test to specific aspects of judicial proceedings beyond just physical attendance. Future cases will require trial courts to provide specific, detailed findings demonstrating a substantial probability of prejudice to an important right and that no reasonable alternatives exist before withholding even juror names, making such closures a high bar to overcome. This balance aims to uphold transparency in the justice system while also protecting jurors' privacy and encouraging civic participation.
