Case Title: Commonwealth v. Fujita

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-11578

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2015-01-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-11578 
 
COMMONWEALTH  vs.  NATHANIEL FUJITA. 
 
 
 
Middlesex.     May 6, 2014. - January 27, 2015. 
 
Present:  Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.1 
 
 
Constitutional Law, Jury, Public right, Access to court 
proceedings.  Jury and Jurors.  Practice, Criminal, Jury 
and jurors, Record.  Impoundment.  Supreme Judicial Court, 
Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
 
Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court 
Department on August 4, 2011. 
 
 
Following entry of an order on a posttrial motion for 
access to the jury list by Peter M. Lauriat, J., review of the 
order was sought by a nonparty from a single justice of the 
Appeals Court. 
 
 
The matter was reported to a panel of the Appeals Court by 
Mark V. Green, J.  The Supreme Judicial Court on its own 
initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. 
 
 
                     
 
1 This case was argued before a panel that included the 
Honorable Roderick L. Ireland prior to his retirement as Chief 
Justice of this court.  The result of that argument was an order 
of remand to the trial court.  After the response to that order 
of remand, the Honorable Ralph D. Gants participated in the 
deliberation on this case and authored his separate opinion 
subsequent to his appointment as Chief Justice of this court. 
2 
 
 
Jonathan M. Albano for Globe Newspaper Company, Inc. 
 
Eva M. Badway, Assistant Attorney General, for the Attorney 
General, intervener. 
 
 
 
CORDY, J.  This appeal arises out of a Superior Court 
judge's ruling on a motion by the Globe Newspaper Company, Inc. 
(Globe), seeking postverdict access to the "jury list" 
containing the names and addresses of the jurors who served at 
the trial of Nathaniel Fujita on charges of murder in the first 
degree and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.  
The trial began on February 11, 2013.  On March 1, while the 
trial was ongoing, the Globe filed its motion to obtain the 
names and addresses of the jurors immediately following entry of 
the verdict, for the purpose of ascertaining their willingness 
to discuss the trial.2  On March 7, 2013, the jury returned 
verdicts of guilty.  Seven days later, the trial judge held a 
hearing on the Globe's motion.  On March 26, he ruled that he 
would send letters to the jury asking if they were "amenable" to 
speaking to the press, and would permit disclosure only of the 
names and addresses of those jurors who responded affirmatively 
to his letter.  On April 16, 2013, presumably at the judge's 
direction, the Superior Court clerk's office provided the Globe 
                     
 
2 The Commonwealth apparently filed an opposition to the 
motion filed by the Globe Newspaper Company, Inc. (Globe), 
citing the "privacy interests of the jurors."  The Commonwealth 
has not filed a brief in this appeal, but the Attorney General 
has appropriately filed a brief and supplemental record appendix 
as intervener.  See note 3, infra. 
3 
 
with the names and addresses of two jurors willing to speak to 
the press, along with instructions that the Globe was to "use 
this information only for the purpose stated in [its] motion" 
and "not to disseminate this juror information to other news 
agencies or third persons." 
 
The Globe filed a petition for relief from the judge's 
ruling with a single justice of the Appeals Court pursuant to 
G. L. c. 231, § 118.  The single justice initially denied the 
petition, but on reconsideration reported it to a panel of the 
Appeals Court.3  We transferred the petitioner's appeal to this 
court on our own motion. 
 
After oral argument, we remanded the case to the Superior 
Court judge for findings regarding questions about the creation 
and retention of any list of jurors empanelled to render a 
verdict in the case.4 
                     
 
3 The single justice of the Appeals Court also ordered that 
the Attorney General be notified of the Globe's petition and be 
given an opportunity to be heard.  See Commonwealth v. Silva, 
448 Mass. 701, 706 (2007).  The Attorney General then proceeded 
as an intervener. 
 
 
4 More specifically, the case was remanded to the Superior 
Court for findings regarding the following questions: 
 
"1.  In what form, if any, were the names and 
addresses of the jurors kept for use during the trial?  If 
the names and addresses were kept, by whom were they kept? 
 
"2.  From what sources and by whom was information 
about juror names and addresses assembled? 
 
"3.  Was there a "jury list" created?  If so, by whom? 
4 
 
 
For the reasons more fully set forth herein, we conclude 
that the public's long-term interest in maintaining an open 
judicial process, as embodied in the United States Constitution 
and Massachusetts common law, requires that a list identifying 
the names of jurors who have been empanelled and rendered a 
verdict in a criminal case be retained in the court file of the 
case and be made available to the public in the same manner as 
other court records.  Only on a judicial finding of good cause, 
which may include a risk of harm to the jurors or to the 
integrity of their service, may such a list be withheld.5  
Insofar as the only basis for the order in this case was the 
judge's aversion to exposing jurors to press interviews and the 
personal preferences of the jurors, his order must be set aside 
in part, and a list identifying the names of jurors (without 
addresses) be disclosed.6 
                                                                  
 
"4.  Was this information made part of the court file 
in this case?  If so, when? 
 
"5.  What is the custom and practice of retaining such 
information, whether in the court file or some other file?" 
 
 
5 Before making such a list available, the trial judge may 
conduct a hearing with respect to whether good reason exists to 
impound the list. 
 
 
6 We also conclude that the limitation on the further 
dissemination of the juror names constituted a prior restraint 
on the press forbidden by the First Amendment to the United 
States Constitution and art. 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration 
of Rights, and it also must be set aside. 
 
5 
 
 
Discussion.  It is beyond debate that, absent extraordinary 
circumstances,7 the identities of jurors empanelled to serve at 
criminal trials are presumptively public under long-standing 
Massachusetts law, practice, and tradition, even in high-profile 
and contentious cases.8 
 
By statute, the lists of all jurors summoned to jury 
service each month in every court, containing the "name, address 
and date of birth of each juror," are public records "available 
                     
 
7 See Commonwealth v. Angiulo, 415 Mass. 502, 527 (1993) 
("The due process clause precludes the empanelment of an 
anonymous jury at a criminal trial unless anonymity is necessary 
to protect the jurors from harm or improper influence"). 
 
 
8 For example, jury selection in the 1770 prosecutions of 
the British soldiers charged with the Boston Massacre was open 
to the public, and the identities of the jurors who acquitted 
the soldiers were known to the community.  See 3 Legal Papers of 
John Adams 17-19, 49 n.1, 99-100 (L. Wroth & H. Zobel eds. 
1965).  Similarly, in the 1806 trial of Thomas Selfridge, a 
prominent Boston attorney accused of shooting and killing the 
son of a political rival in the middle of the day on State 
Street, the jurors were drawn and publicly announced at the 
trial -- the first being Paul Revere (who went unchallenged) -- 
and were listed in the publicly available reports of the 
proceeding.  See, e.g., Trial of Thomas O. Selfridge, Att'y at 
Law, Before the Hon. Isaac Parker, Esquire, For Killing Charles 
Austin on the Public Exchange, in Boston, August 4th, 1806, at 9 
(Russell & Cutter, Belcher & Armstrong, Oliver & Munroe, and 
William Blagrow, 1807) (juror empanelment on Dec. 23, 1806).  
Similarly, in the 1849 trial of Professor John W. Webster for 
the murder of Dr. George Parkman (one of the most intensely 
followed and reported murder trials in the United States at the 
time), the jurors' names were publicly drawn at the beginning of 
the trial and published in special editions of the newspapers of 
the time.  See, e.g., Trial of Professor John W. Webster for the 
Murder of Dr. George Parkman in the Medical College, at 6 
(Boston Herald Steam Press, 1850) (listing names of jurors 
selected for trial). 
6 
 
upon request for inspection by parties, counsel, their agents, 
and members of the public."  G. L. c. 234A, § 67.  Under Federal 
jurisprudence, there is also a constitutional right of public 
access to court proceedings, including juror empanelment 
proceedings.  See Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 
U.S. 501, 507-510 (1984); Commonwealth v. Cohen (No. 1), 456 
Mass. 94, 106-107 (2010).  This right is grounded in both fair 
trial and First Amendment principles.  Cohen (No. 1), supra at 
106.  In addition, in Massachusetts, we have "long recognized a 
common-law right of public access to judicial records."  
Republican Co. v. Appeals Court, 442 Mass. 218, 222 (2004).  
Together, these rights are intended to ensure and instill public 
confidence and trust in our system of justice, and in the 
integrity and fairness of its proceedings. 
 
It is also beyond debate that the identities of the jurors 
empanelled to decide a case at some point become known to the 
court and become part of the court record in the case.  This 
often happens as it did here, during the individual voir dire of 
the potential jurors, when jurors are identified not just by 
their assigned juror numbers, but also by their names.  If 
disclosed during the empanelment process, the information is 
7 
 
duly recorded by the court reporter or recording system, and is 
later available for transcription.9,10 
 
Whether or not the names of the sitting jurors publicly 
emerge during the empanelment process, there is little doubt 
that court officials assemble a tangible list of their 
identities for use during the trial.  Historically, these "juror 
lists" have been included and can be found in the court files of 
closed cases that proceeded to trial.  See Hindus, Hammett, & 
Hobson, Massachusetts Superior Court Files, 1859-1959 (1980) 
(finding that such files "usually include a list of jurors").  
See also C. Menand, A Guide to the Suffolk County Inferior Court 
of Common Pleas 13 (1981) ("Juror lists appear regularly among 
the papers after 1797 and are filed . . . at the beginning of 
the case file papers for each term"). 
 
On remand, the judge found that several such lists had, in 
fact, been created, but were neither preserved nor included in 
                     
 
9 In his decision on the Globe's motion, the judge observed 
that "[t]hroughout the trial of this matter, justice required 
that the names of the jurors be kept from public access to 
protect them from outside influences that could jeopardize the 
parties' rights to a fair trial," citing In re Globe Newspaper 
Co., 920 F.2d 88, 90 (lst Cir. 1990), and it appears that during 
their empanelment process the names of the jurors were only 
mentioned at their individual voir dire examination done at 
sidebar and out of the hearing of the public in attendance. 
 
 
10 It is not always the case that the names rather than the 
numbers assigned to jurors are disclosed, and therefore 
transcribed by the court reporter during the empanelment 
process. 
8 
 
the case file.  First, there was a "jury [e]mpanelment sheet" 
containing the names and badge numbers of all prospective jurors 
sent to the session for empanelment.  This list did not include 
addresses.  It was used by the session clerk to mark the jurors 
who were sworn, excused, or not reached.  This list was returned 
to the jury pool office after the jury had been selected, and 
not retained for inclusion in the court file of the case.  
Second, the session clerk created a separate "Daily Report of 
Juror Attendance," listing the empanelled jurors' names and 
badge numbers but not their addresses.  This list was used to 
record daily juror attendance.11  It was also returned to the 
jury pool office each day and not retained for the court file of 
the case.  Finally, the session court officers prepared a list 
of empanelled jurors and their telephone numbers, which was 
provided to the session clerk, and was to be used in the event 
there was a need to contact jurors during the trial, for 
example, if a juror failed to appear or if the court session 
needed to be cancelled.  This list was destroyed at the end of 
the trial.12 
                     
 
11 This list was created by the session clerk both in 
electronic and paper forms. 
 
 
12 The judge also maintained copies of the confidential 
juror questionnaires previously completed by the jurors who were 
empanelled on the jury.  The questionnaires are not public 
records, G. L. c. 234A, § 23, and were appropriately destroyed 
after the trial. 
9 
 
 
In deciding this case, we are compelled to decide not only 
whether a list of jurors was maintained in the court file of the 
case, thus becoming a judicial document accessible to the public 
unless impounded, Commonwealth v. Winfield, 464 Mass. 672, 679 
(2013), but also whether, if not, some form of a jury list 
should have been included and maintained in the court file.  The 
Globe has directed us to historical cases supporting the 
tradition of including such a list in the court files of 
criminal cases,13 and has also identified examples of juror lists 
readily available in Superior Court files of recent high-profile 
criminal trials, usually in the form of "Daily Reports of Juror 
Attendance."14  Based on the findings of the judge in this case, 
it is apparent that there is inconsistency in the current 
practice of retaining juror lists, a matter of significant 
public and systemic importance. 
 
Consequently, we take this opportunity to direct that a 
list of the names of jurors empanelled in any criminal case be 
included in the court file of the case, no later than at the 
                     
 
13 The history of this tradition has been confirmed by our 
own random review of records of cases (mostly murder trials) 
tried by juries before the Supreme Judicial Court in the 
Nineteenth Century. 
 
 
14 Also labelled as "Daily Trial Attendance Records" in some 
court files. 
 
10 
 
completion of the trial.15  This directive is consistent with the 
prior practice of the Superior Court, both historically and in 
more recent times.16 
 
Having determined that a juror list is a court record, we 
turn to the subject of its impoundment.  In order to overcome 
the public right of access to judicial records, we have 
repeatedly stated that there must be a showing of "good cause," 
Republican Co., 442 Mass. at 222-223, and cases cited, and that 
in determining whether good cause has been shown, "a judge must 
balance the rights of the parties based on the facts of each 
case."  Id., quoting Boston Herald, Inc. v. Sharpe, 432 Mass. 
593, 604 (2000).  "In doing so, the judge must take into account 
all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the nature 
of the parties and the controversy, the type of information and 
the privacy interests involved, the extent of the community 
interest, and the reason for the request" (quotation and 
                     
 
15 This list is not to include information obtained from the 
confidential juror questionnaires and is appropriately limited 
to the names of the jurors on the daily attendance records. 
 
 
16 In a letter dated May 18, 1983, James P. Lynch, Jr., then 
Chief Justice of the Superior Court, addressed the practice in a 
letter to the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association.  
In that letter, Chief Justice Lynch explained that, "[a]s a 
practical matter," a person could properly obtain juror names 
from the session clerk's "daily attendance record[s]," and could 
then obtain juror addresses from the jury commissioner's list 
(of all jurors summoned to the court session) on file and 
publicly available in the clerk-magistrate's office.  See G. L. 
c. 234A, § 67. 
11 
 
citations omitted).  Republican Co., supra.  Importantly, we 
have emphasized that in balancing these interests, "impoundment 
is always the exception to the rule, and the power to deny 
public access to judicial records is to be strictly construed in 
favor of the general principle of publicity" (quotation and 
citation omitted).  Id.  Access to information about the 
operation of the administration of justice, including 
information about jurors who render justice, promotes confidence 
in the judicial system by, among other things, providing an 
independent nongovernmental verification of the impartiality of 
the jury process, and educating the public as to their duties 
and obligations should they be called for jury service.  The 
burden falls on the party seeking to limit or bar access to 
judicial records to overcome the presumption that the records 
ought to be accessible to the public.  Id. at 225. 
 
We review decisions to restrict access to or impound 
judicial records for abuse of discretion or other legal error.  
Boston Herald, Inc., 432 Mass. at 601.  In the present case, the 
only reason proffered to support good cause was the apparent 
personal preferences of the jurors who responded to the judge's 
letter sent approximately one month after the trial had 
concluded.17  We are not indifferent to the desire of many jurors 
                     
 
17 It is important to note what this case is not about.  It 
is not about impounding the names and addresses of seated jurors 
12 
 
to return to their private lives uninterrupted by media or other 
inquiries about their service; however, standing alone, such 
interests ordinarily will be inadequate as a matter of law to 
support an impoundment order in the face of the great weight we 
afford to the principle of public availability.  In this 
respect, we agree with the United States Court of Appeals for 
the First Circuit that "where -- as here -- the trial judge 
points to no special reason for confidentiality other than the 
personal preferences of the jurors . . . the public's long-term 
interest in maintaining an open judicial process must prevail in 
the balance."  In re Globe Newspaper Co., 920 F.2d 88, 91 (lst 
Cir. 1990).  A judge's personal distaste for press interviews of 
jurors is accorded no weight in this balancing.18  Although we 
recognize that there are courts in other jurisdictions that have 
                                                                  
during the course of a highly visible trial where the risks of 
inappropriate juror contact would jeopardize a party's right to 
a fair trial.  It is also not about withholding juror identities 
after trial where there is a risk of personal harm to the 
jurors.  See Silva, 448 Mass. at 708.  Nor is it about a judge's 
authority to impound the responses of jurors to highly invasive 
or personal questions (necessitated by the nature of the case to 
be tried) posed during the individual voir dire process.  In 
each of these circumstances, good cause would be readily 
apparent. 
 
 
18 It is, however, not inappropriate for a trial judge to 
meet with the jurors postverdict to discuss the importance of 
and value in not disclosing what was said by other jurors in the 
deliberative process, and to advise jurors of their right not to 
respond to media requests, and to bring acts of harassment to 
the court's attention promptly.  See, e.g., In re Globe 
Newspaper Co., 920 F.2d at 91 (judge "properly urged the jurors 
to keep their deliberations confidential"). 
13 
 
concluded that there is no public right to know the identities 
of jurors or that the privacy interests of jurors alone trump 
the public right of access to judicial records that disclose 
their identities, see Commonwealth v. Silva, 448 Mass. 701, 709 
n.14 (2007), we have historically concluded otherwise.  "[T]he 
prospect of criminal justice being routinely meted out by 
unknown persons does not comport with democratic values of 
accountability and openness."  In re Globe Newspaper Co., supra 
at 98. 
 
Accordingly, the ruling of the judge is reversed in part, 
and the names of the jurors shall be made available, without 
restriction, to the Globe.19 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered. 
 
                     
 
19 The restriction on dissemination placed on the Globe's 
use of the names and addresses lawfully obtained from the 
court's records is plainly a prior restraint forbidden by the 
First Amendment and art. 16.  See George W. Prescott Publ. Co. 
v. Stoughton Div. of the Dist. Court Dep't of the Trial Court, 
428 Mass. 309, 310-312 (1998); United States v. Quattrone, 402 
F.3d 304, 311-313 (2d Cir. 2005).  The Attorney General 
recognizes the problem, but suggests that the matter should be 
remanded for clarification, where it is not clear whether this 
restriction was part of the judge's original order.  The 
restriction fails in any case. 
 
 
 
 
GANTS, C.J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).  I 
agree with the court that the names of jurors, once announced in 
court during jury selection, as they were in this case, are part 
of the public record of the case and that, in the absence of an 
order of impoundment supported by good cause, the names are 
available to any member of the public.1  Therefore, if the Globe 
Newspaper Company, Inc. (Globe), wished to learn the names of 
the jurors, it, like any person, could have ordered a transcript 
of the jury empanelment, even an expedited transcript, and 
obtained the names from that transcript.  See Commonwealth v. 
Winfield, 464 Mass. 672, 675 (2013) ("right of access to court 
trials [under the First Amendment to the United States 
Constitution] includes the right to purchase a transcript of the 
court proceeding that was open to the public").  But the Globe 
did not choose to exercise that right; instead, it asked the 
court to create a document that was not part of the case file, 
                     
 
1 "The due process clause precludes the empanelment of an 
anonymous jury at a criminal trial unless anonymity is necessary 
to protect the jurors from harm or improper influence. . . .  
[N]o anonymous jury is to be empanel[l]ed in the courts of the 
Commonwealth unless the trial judge has first determined on 
adequate evidence that anonymity is truly necessary and has made 
written findings on the question."  Commonwealth v. Angiulo, 415 
Mass. 502, 527 (1993), citing United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 
1359, 1365 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Fisher v. United 
States, 474 U.S. 819 (1985), and cert. denied sub nom. Rice v. 
United States, 479 U.S. 818 (1986).  Unless the judge has made 
the findings necessary to justify an anonymous jury, the name of 
each prospective juror should be announced on the record before 
that juror is empanelled. 
2 
 
 
listing the names and addresses of the jurors, and provide that 
newly created document to the Globe.  I do not agree with the 
court that, following the verdict, a list of the jurors' names 
must be created and made a part of the court file, available to 
any member of the public on request unless the list is ordered 
impounded based on a showing of good cause. 
 
I understand that the creation of such a list would make it 
easier and less expensive for the Globe (or, for that matter, 
any member of the public) to contact jurors about the verdict 
without incurring the expense of ordering a transcript of the 
jury empanelment.  But the constitutional right of public access 
to court trials does not require courts to create documents so 
that the press or members of the public may learn what occurred 
at trial without the need to attend the trial or order a 
transcript, whether the document asked to be created is a 
compilation of a list of jurors or of witnesses, or a summary of 
key testimony.  Cf. id. at 677-678 ("We know of no case where 
the First Amendment right of access has been extended to include 
a right to [a court document or recording that is] not the 
official record of the trial and is not referenced or contained 
in the court file").  Nor does the common-law right of access to 
judicial records apply where, as in this case, no juror list was 
filed in court and made a part of the case file.  See id. at 679 
("Where a document or recording is kept in the court file, it is 
3 
 
 
a judicial document under our case law that is accessible to the 
public unless impounded").  Where the court is in possession of 
documents or information that are not kept in the court file, 
such as a list of trial jurors, the appropriate standard is 
"whether a record that is not kept in the court file is 
nonetheless so important to public understanding of the judicial 
proceeding that it should be presumed to be public, so that the 
public may 'assume a significant, positive role in the 
functioning of the judicial system.'"  Id. at 680-681, quoting 
Boston Herald, Inc. v. Sharpe, 432 Mass. 593, 607 (2000).  The 
burden rests with the proponent of the motion, here the Globe, 
"to show why the interests of justice would be served by making 
a document that is not presumptively public available to the 
public in this particular case."  Winfield, 464 Mass. at 681.  
"We review the judge's decision for abuse of discretion."  Id.  
Applying that standard, I conclude that the judge did not abuse 
his discretion in making available to the Globe only the names 
and addresses of those jurors who wished to speak with the 
Globe.  Therefore, I respectfully dissent.2 
                     
 
2 I agree with the court that, once the names of the jurors 
are made publicly available, any order restricting dissemination 
is an unconstitutional prior restraint forbidden by the First 
Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. 16 of the 
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, and therefore concur with 
that part of the court's opinion. 
4 
 
 
 
In its opinion, the court recognizes that several jury 
lists were created in this case:  (1) the "jury [e]mpanelment 
sheet" that identifies the jurors who were sent to the court 
room for empanelment, and who were sworn, excused, or not 
reached; this document was returned to the jury pool office 
after the jury were selected; (2) the "Daily Report of Juror 
Attendance," which was used by the session clerk to record daily 
juror attendance and was returned to the jury pool office each 
day; (3) the list prepared by the court officers of the 
empanelled jurors' names and telephone numbers, so that they 
could be contacted during the course of the trial; this list was 
destroyed after trial; and (4) the confidential juror 
questionnaires completed by the empanelled jurors, which are not 
public records, G. L. c. 234A, § 23, and which "were 
appropriately destroyed after the trial."  Ante at note 12.  The 
court does not suggest that any of these documents should have 
been placed in the court file or that it is the current practice 
of all courts to do so.  Rather, the court notes that "there is 
inconsistency in the current practice of retaining juror lists" 
and that it was "the prior practice" of the Superior Court to 
include such a list in the case file.  Ante at    .  The court 
then decides to require courts to create a list of jurors' names 
and place the list in the court file "no later than at the 
completion of the trial."  Id.  I recognize that the court, 
5 
 
 
under its superintendence power, has the authority to order 
trial courts to create a document and place it in the court 
file, where it will then enjoy the presumption of public access 
as a court record.  But I question the wisdom of doing so and 
fear that we may someday come to regret it. 
 
The court contends that the creation and filing of a juror 
list is required by the "public's long-term interest in 
maintaining an open judicial process."  Id. at    .  Our 
judicial process, however, is already open.  All trials are 
public, and as noted, trial transcripts may be ordered by anyone 
willing to pay for them.  Apart from those rare trials where 
jurors are selected anonymously, the names of jurors should be 
announced on the record as part of a public trial.3 
 
The court also contends that creating a juror list and 
making it part of the court record "promotes confidence in the 
judicial system by, among other things, providing an independent 
nongovernmental verification of the impartiality of the jury 
                     
 
3 I recognize that, as happened here, the names of jurors 
sometimes are announced only at sidebar, but, in the absence of 
an impoundment order, all that is said at sidebar is part of the 
public trial and can be read in the transcript.  Where a 
transcript is ordered and where that transcript would reveal 
intensely personal matters regarding prospective jurors that 
were discussed at sidebar during individual voir dire, such as 
whether prospective jurors in a sexual assault trial have ever 
themselves been victims of a sexual assault, a judge may impound 
that personal information for good cause shown.  See ante at 
note 17. 
6 
 
 
process, and educating the public as to their duties and 
obligations should they be called for jury service."  Id. 
at    .  But this is an unreasonably optimistic expectation of 
the consequences of this opinion.  Who are we kidding?  The 
press wants the names of jurors so they can interview the jurors 
about what was said in the jury room and why they reached the 
verdict they did.  The court itself recognizes the dangers 
lurking in such an inquiry, noting that it is "not inappropriate 
for a trial judge to meet with the jurors postverdict to discuss 
the importance of and value in not disclosing what was said by 
other jurors in the deliberative process."  Id. at note 18. 
 
Moreover, where a court record is created naming the 
jurors, that court record is available to anyone on request, not 
just the press.  Therefore, in the absence of an impoundment 
order, anyone interested in or unhappy with the verdict could 
obtain the list simply by requesting the court file and, because 
it is not difficult these days to find online a person's 
address, telephone number, electronic mail (e-mail) address, or 
social media page, anyone obtaining this list could attempt to 
communicate with the jurors by telephone, letter, e-mail, or 
social media.  To be sure, a person already can learn the names 
of jurors and attempt to communicate with them about the verdict 
without a juror list if the person is willing to sit through 
jury empanelment or to order a trial transcript of the 
7 
 
 
empanelment, but the court's opinion will make it far easier for 
a person to do so.  I do not think it is wise to encourage such 
postverdict communications, especially where the jurors will 
have no say whether they welcome such communications. 
 
 I also fear that the creation of a juror list to be 
included in the case file may, over time, diminish the fairness 
and impartiality of jurors.  Jurors are the only persons in this 
country that we presently draft into government service.  We ask 
them for a few days or a few weeks to put aside their 
employment, educational, or family responsibilities, and devote 
their full attention to a criminal or civil trial where they 
will decide guilt or liability.  We have had few instances in 
this Commonwealth where jurors have been threatened or harassed 
after their verdict, but many jurors fear the possibility, 
especially where they reside in or near the communities of the 
litigants or the litigants' families.  By making it easy for 
anyone to obtain their names, the risk of such misconduct will 
increase, and jurors' fears that their verdict may make them the 
target of such misconduct, even if it is only an angry telephone 
call or Facebook posting, will increase proportionately.  I 
would like to think that jurors will put aside such concerns in 
8 
 
 
reaching a verdict, but I worry that this opinion will make it 
more difficult for jurors to do so.4 
 
Where, as here, there was no jury list in the court file, 
the burden rested with the Globe to show that such a list should 
be created and made part of the court file because it is "so 
important to public understanding of the judicial proceeding 
that it should be presumed to be public, so that the public may 
'assume a significant, positive role in the functioning of the 
judicial system.'"  Winfield, 464 Mass. at 681, quoting Boston 
Herald, Inc., 432 Mass. at 607.  Here, where the list of jurors 
was already publicly available from the trial record, the judge 
did not abuse his discretion in determining that whatever public 
interest there may be in the Globe speaking to the jurors about 
their verdict could be accomplished by providing a list only of 
those jurors who were willing to speak to the Globe.  If the 
Globe wished to speak to jurors who had no desire to speak with 
its reporters, it could have ordered a transcript of the jury 
empanelment and obtained their names from the public record.  
Neither public understanding of the judicial process nor the 
                     
 
4 I recognize that the court's opinion would permit a judge 
to impound a juror list where good cause is shown, but the court 
made clear that good cause would generally require "a risk of 
personal harm to the jurors."  Ante at note 17.  Thankfully, 
there are very few such cases where there is evidence of a "risk 
of personal harm" to jurors.  But there are many more cases 
where there might be a risk that someone may wish to reach out 
to a juror in a manner that a juror would find to be 
threatening, harassing, or troubling. 
9 
 
 
interests of justice are served by requiring the court to create 
a list of jurors that includes those who would prefer to be left 
alone and to file that list in the court file so that the Globe, 
or anyone else, may communicate with them against their wishes 
about the verdict they rendered.