Preview of Member Only Content
For full access: or Become a Member
Limits on anonymous juries
By Barry Tarlow
RICO Report columns.
The Constitution guarantees a
defendant the right to the judgment of his peers. Until recently, it was
assumed that the accused and the public, were entitled to know which of the
defendant’s peers sat in judgment.
High-profile trials, involving either allegedly dangerous members of organized crime, or intense media interest in every aspect of the trial, have led to a phenomenon unknown three decades ago — the anonymous jury. Former Louisiana Governor, United States Congressman, and State Supreme Court Justice Edwin Edwards, who was tried by an anonymous jury for political corruption, described the inconsistency of anonymous juries with the constitutional mandate: “It is contrary to the concept of being tried by your peers in a community where you know the jurors and they know you.” Ashley Gauthier, Secret Justice: Anonymous Juries (on the website of the Reporter’s
Committee for Freedom of the Press, http://www.recfp.org).
The threshold the prosecution must meet to keep from the
Want to read more?
The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.
NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.
Not a member? Join now.
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.
See what NACDL members say about us.
To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.
- Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or email@example.com
- Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.