## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 2359 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. R OD B LA GOJ EV I CH an d R OBERT B LA GOJ EV I CH, D ef endants

. A PP E A L OF : C H I CA GO T RI BUNE C OMPAN Y, T HE N EW Y OR K T IMES C OMPAN Y, I LLINO IS P RESS A S S OC I A T I ON, an d I LLINO IS B RO AD CA STERS A S S OC I A T I ON

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 08 C R 888

—Jam es B. Z agel, Ju dge
.
A RG UE D J UNE 29, 2010

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 2, 2010

—

A MEND ED J UL Y 12, 2010

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd W OO D a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . Antici pati ng tha t the substa nti alat tenti on be i ng d ev ot ed to the cri m i nal char ges2 N o. 10

- 2359 ag ains t a f o r m erGo ve r nor ofI l l i no i s woul d l ea d the pr es s an d pub l i c to bombar d j ur o r s wi the m ai l a nd instan t m essag es th at cou ld u nd erm ine t h e ir im p arti al i ty ( and perhaps thei r equani m i ty) , the dist ri ct j ud ge de c i de d tha t the na mes o f j ur o r s s e l e c t e d f o r the tr i al woul d no t be r el ea se d unt i l the t r i alha s end ed. The Chic a go Tr i b une, The N ew Yo rk Tim es , an d tw o m ed ia gr oups so ught t o i nter vene to conte nd thatthe nam es sh o uld be r el ea se d a s so o n a s th e j ur o r s ar e se at ed. The j ud g e t o l d the p ut a t i v e i nt e r v e no r s thath e h a d a l r e a dy p rom i sed the j uror s that thei r nam es w oul d be di scl ose d o nl y a t th e t ria l ’ s en d, a nd tha t th ei r mot i o n t o i nt er ve ne ther ef or e was unti m el y. The j ud ge also concl ud ed that th e firs t a m en d m en t d oe s n oten tit l e t h e p re ss to ob ta in th ese n am es , w h ich h ave n ever bee n u ttered i n cou rt

— tho ugh the p a r t i e s a nd the i r l a wy e r s kno w the j ur o r s’ na m es (the j ud ge d id n ot orde r anon ym ity). T he Fed eral Ru les ofCrim inal P roced ure lack a cou nt erpar t to F ed. R. Ci v. P. 2 4, whi cha l l o ws i nt er ve nt ion. But cour ts have perm i tte d i nter venti on w h en the potenti al i nt er ve no r ha s a l eg iti m at e i nt er es t i n the o ut co m e an d cannot prot ect that i nter estwith ou t be com i ng a party
. Se e In re Asso cia ted P ress , 162 F.3d 503 , 507

– 0 8 ( 7th Cir. 1998 ) ( al l owing i nter ve n tion i n a c ri m i nal pro secuti on an d c o l l ec tingo th erc as es o n the s ubj ec t)

. S ee also Fed. R. Cr i m . P. 5 7(b) ( “A j udg e m ayr egul at e pr ac ti ce i n a ny m anne r c o ns i st en t wi thfedera l l aw, the se rul es , a nd the local rules of the d istri ct.”). Cf. U nite d S t at e s v. Rol l i ns , N o . 0 9- 2293 ( 7th Ci r . J une 9 , 2 01 0) ( di sc us singo pi ni o ns that al l ow m oti ons f or r ec onsi derat i on i n cr i m i nal cas es, de s pi t e the a b s e nc e o f a ny pr o v i s i o n i n the Ru l e s o f C rim inal Proced ure ).N o. 10

- 2359 3 The f our w oul d-be i nter venor s hav e a pp eal ed. The tr i al i s o ngoing . B ecause the parti es est i m ate thati t wil l l ast f o r s ev er ala ddi ti o nal wee k s, the c o nt r o ve r syi s l i ve . And the a pp eali s s up port ed by the c oll ate ra l

- or der doct rine, b ec au se an appealfro m the fi nal deci si on would be to o l at e. By the n th e n am es wi l l ha ve b ee n di sc l o se d t o the publ i c. The o nl y way t o v i ndi ca te a cl ai m ed en ti tl ement to o b t a i n the n a mes b e f o r e the t r i a l ’ s e nd i s a n a ppeal bef or e the tr i al ’ s e nd

. S ee Gr o ve Fres h Dis t r i b ut ors , Inc . v. Eve r f r e s h Ju i c eCo

. , 24 F. 3d 893, 895– 96 (7th C ir. 1994). A l though the dist ri ct j ud ge gave tw o re aso n s fo r den y i ngthe mot i o n to i nt er ve ne

— that the m oti on was unti m el y a nd t h at defer re d discl osur e i s co m patibl e with th e fi r sta m en dm en t

— appell ants’ o pening bri efar gues on ly th e latt er su bj ec t. Fo ot n ot e 3 m en tio n s th e t i m eline ss i ss ue a nd s ta te s th ata ppel l an ts d isa g r ee wi ththe dist ri ct j ud ge but does notaddu ce a ny ar gum ent. N or w ould a rgum ent hav e be en per m i ssibl e in that f oo tnot e, which a p p ears i n the b r i ef’ s “S ta te m en t o fthe C ase”

. A rgum en t is not all ow ed i n a brief’ s re c ap of a case ’ s pro cedure orf acts
. S ee 52 0 S outh M i ch igan Ave nue Ass oc i at e s , Lt d. v. Shann on , 54 9 F
. 3d 1119 , 11 24 n. 4 ( 7th Cir

. 20 08) ; Ci rcui t Rule 28( c)

. But afterthe appell ants f o r fe i t e d a n y o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n t e s to n e oft h e t wo grou nd s on w hich they had l ost in the district cou rt

— an d th u s d o o me d th e i r a ppea l, b e c a u s e i fy o u l o s e f o r t wo i nd ependent re aso ns an app el l ate vict or y on one does not affec t th e j udg m en t

— th e Uni te d S ta te s f o r fei te d the ben efi t of ap p ell a n t s ’ forfei tu re. I ns tead the p rosecu tor’s bri efm et the non- ar gum ent o n the m er i ts, and at or al ar gum ent c ounself orthe U ni ted S tat es re prese nted th at4 N o. 10

- 2359 th e p rosecu tor is not invoking an y d octrine off orfei tu re to block ap p ell ate review
. Th e po ssibil ity off orfeitu re thus has been w aiv ed , a nd as the subj ect i s no t j uri sdic

ti onalthe pros ecuto r’ s wai veri s co ncl usi ve. T hu s freed to con side r the validity of the d istri ct cou rt’s de ci si on, we concl ud e that i t was an abuse o fdi scr eti on to de em unt i m ely the mot i o n t o i nt er ve ne . T rue, b y the day o fthe hear i ng o n the m oti on t o in te rv en e, the j ud ge had tol d the j uror s that th eir n am es w oul d be r eve al ed onl y a fterthe tr i alended. Bu t the m oti on f orl eave to i nt er vene had been fi l ed the day be f or e the j ud ge gave this a ss u ra nce t o the j uror s, and a j ud ge cannot r e nd e r a mo t i o n un t i mel y b y a n a c tt a k e n af t e r wa r d. That woul d m ak e th e j udg e’ s dec l ar at i o n a s el f

- ful fi l l i ng prophesy

. I t wo uld be r egr ett abl e t o disa pp oi nt j uror s’ l egi ti m ate ex p ec tati ons, but i t would be ev en m or e r egr et ta b le t o p er m it a d ist ric t jud ge to fru st ra te an y c h all en g e to hi s dec i si o n b y g i ving a n as su r an ce tha t he ou g h t to have un d erstood w as p rem atu re i n li gh t of a pen di ngmot i o n. T h e ju d g e thou gh t tha t the pres s shou ld h ave intervened ea rl i er, bec ause i n m i d -2009 he m used i n open co ur t ab o utthe po ss ibi l i tyo fde fer r i ngr el ea se o fthe j ur o r s’ na m es . Th atmusi ngwas r epo r te d i n the Chi cago Su n-Tim es and other papers; the press th er efor e ca nnot cl aim ig nor ance. Tw o yea rs ea rl i era dist ri ct j ud ge had defer r ed th e r el ea se o fj uror s’ na m es i n a no th erhi g hprofi l e cr i m i nal pro secuti on i n the N or th er n Dis tr i ct o f I l l i noi s. U nite d State s v. B lack, 4 83 F . Su p p . 2d 61 8 (N .D . I ll. 20 07 )

. The Tr i b uneh ad to ap p re c iat e t h at th is w as a p os si-N o. 10

- 2359 5 bi l i tyf o r the pr o se cuti on o fa f o r m erg o ve r no r . But pe o pl e ne e d no t i nt e r v e ne i n r e s po ns e t o mus i ngs. H ad th e Tr i b unem ove d to i nter vene i n m i d-20 09, the dist ri ct cou rt l ikel y w ou ld h ave rej ecte d the m otion as p rem atu re and tol d th e n ew spaper to bi de i ts ti m e. I nter venti on not only com p li c a t e s the p rocess of ad j ud ication (extra parti es fi l e e xtra bri ef s a nd m ay obs tr uct se ttl em ents by th e o r i g i na l par ti es ) but al so i s ex pen si ve f or e ve r y o ne i nvol ved. That e xpense shoul d not be i ncurr ed unle ss necess ar y. Once th e j udg e no t o nl y fl ag s an i ss ue as im p or ta nt but al so set s a sche du l e fori ts re sol uti on, the ti m e has co m e to i nt er ve ne . Pe o pl e po te nt ial l y a ffec te d b y the d ecision c an ’t si t on th e sidelines, as i f interven tion w ere a pet i ti o n f o r r eh eari ng . I fthe y r ec ei ve no ti ce tha t th e cour t wil l hol d a hear i ng to address a part i cul arquesti on, theym ust par ti ci pate r atherthan w ai t a nd see what the c ourtd oe s. S ee Heartw o o d, Inc . v. U nited Sta tes Fo rest Service, 316 F. 3d 694 ( 7th C i r. 2003)

. (Charl es A l an W ri ght, A rthur R. M i l l er& M ar y Kay Kane, 7C Federa l P ra cti ce a nd P roc edu re §1 91 6 (3d ed

. 20 07 ), d isc u ss es th is p rin c ip le an d s o m e ex ce pti o ns , whi chwe ne ed not co ns i der

. ) But th e d ist ric t jud ge in t h is c as e d id n otse t a sc h ed u le f o r de ci di ngwhenj ur o r s’ na m es woul d b e r el ea se d a nd di d no t ho l d a he ar i ngo n tha t su bj ect. Ins te ad he ap p ears to ha ve en tertaine d sub m issi ons i n ch a m b ers f ro m co unsel and then r eached a d ec isio n , wh i ch w as not announced to the publ i c unti l t he ve ryday the j ud ge deni ed th e m o ti o n t o i nt er ve ne . ( A pas sings ta te m en t i n o pe n c o ur t t wo we e k s e a r l i e r i s t o the s a me ef f ect, th ou gh n o for m al d ec isio n w as e n t e r ed on th e d oc ke t.)6 N o. 10

- 2359 The r e was ne ve r a pub l i c anno unc ementi den ti fy i ng ani ss ue a nd s pec i fy i nga s ch edu l e f o r i ts r esol uti o n. The m oti on t o i nter vene ther ef or e was ti m el y. The i nf o r m al i tyo fthe pr o ce dur e th atl ed to the c o ntes ted deci si on a l so com pli cate s e val ua tio n o fthe m er i ts. A pp el l ants conte nd thatthe press has an u n q ual i fi ed ri ght of a c c es s t o j uror s’ nam es w hi l e the tr i alpro ceeds, eve n th ou gh tho se nam es have neverbee n utter ed ei ther in op en co u rtor in a c los e d se ss ion . Th ey rely p rin c ip ally onP ress-E nterp rise C o . v . S up erior C o urt, 46 4 U.S

. 50 1 ( 1984 ) ( P ress-E nterp rise I ) , whi c h c o nc l ud e d tha t the fi r s ta men dm ent m ake s v oi r dir e pr esum pti vel y o pen to the publi c, an d th e d ivid ed d ec isio n inU ni t e d S t a tes v. We ch t, 53 7 F. 3d 222 (3d Ci r. 20 08) , wh i ch exte nd ed thi s a pp ro ach to j uror s’ na m es e ve n whe n n o t m en ti o ne d dur i ngthe voir dire. Cf. P ress-E nterp rise C o . v. Sup erior C o urt, 47 8 U
. S. 1 (198 6) ( P re ss -Enterpris e II ) (prelim inary he arings are p re su m p tiv ely op en ). B u t n o on e c o n t e n d s (o r sh ou ld conte nd ) thatj u ro rs’ nam es al ways mus tb e r e l e a s e d. A nonym ous j uri es ar e per m i ssibl e when the j uror s’ sa fety woul d b e j eo par di ze d b y pub l i c kn o wl edg e, o r the de fen dant has a tte m pted to bribe o r i nti m i date w i tness es or j uror s. S ee, e. g., U nited Sta tes v. O ch o a -V a squez , 42 8 F
. 3d 10 15 , 1 03 1–38 ( 11 thCi r . 2 00 5) ; U nit e d S t at e s v. Edm ond, 52 F.3d 1080 , 1 089– 94 (D

. C

. Cir. 1995); U nited Sta tes v. B a rnes , 60 4 F .2d 12 1, 14 0– 43 (2d C ir. 19 79 ). Th e r i g h t q u es tio n is notw heth ernam es m ay be kep t se c r e t, or d isclosure defer r ed, b utw ha t justifies s ucha de ci si o n. A p p ella n ts se e k a c c es s t o t h e jur or s’ n am es n oton ly to p u b lish h u m an -in te re st st or ies (t h ou gh w e d on ’t d en i-N o. 10

- 2359 7 grate th at obj ective) bu t also becau se th ey w a n t t o l earn w hetherthe sea ted j uror s a re sui tabl e deci si on- m ake rs . I nvest i gat i ons of th e j uror s in the tr i alo fGovernor Bl ag oj ev i ch ’ s pr ede ce ss o r ( bo th in th ato ffi ce a nd a t th e d efe n d an ts ’ ta b le) rev ea led th at se ve ra l h ad lie d o n th eir questi on n air es and had d i squal i fyi ng co nvi cti ons or otherwise m i ght ha ve been subj ect to chal l enge f or cause. The di str i ct c ourtr ep laced t w o ofthe j uror s a fter del iber ati ons had begun. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. War ner, 498 F. 3d 666, 6 84 –9 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)

. N o one f anci es a r epeat p e r f o r ma n c e . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tb e l i e v e s th a ti th a s i mpr o ve d the v et tingpr o ce ss ; the pr es s w ants t o c he ck, a nd to d o s o b efo re it is t o o la te to se at alt er n at e jur or s (if ne ce ss ar y ) s o tha t th e tr i alc anr ea cha s ucc es sfulc o nc lu sio n . Th e d ist ric t jud ge fea rs , ho w ev er , th at p u b lic knowle dge o fthe j uror s’ i denti ti es w i l l le ad to e vents that und er m i ne the i m parti al i ty ofthe perso n s no w se r vinga nd wou l d di sc o ura g e o th er s f r o m a g r ee i ng to ser ve i n future tr i al s. L egi ti m ate i nter est s a re o n both si des. Rel yi ng o n the fi rs t a m endm ent a s the m eans ofo btaining th e inform ation com p li cate s m atters, how ever, because ther e is no ge nera l co nsti tuti onal“r i ght o facc e s s ” t o i n f o r ma t i o n tha t a g o v e r n me n t a l o ffi c i a l kn o ws but has not re leas ed to the pu bl i c. S ee Los A ngeles P olice D epa rtm ent v . U nit e d R epo rting P ubli shin g C o rp . , 528 U
. S. 32 , 4 0 ( 1999 ) ( no r i ght under the fi rs t a m endm ent t o addr es se s o fpe r sons w ho h av e be ena r r es te d b y the p oli ce); Ho u c h i n s v . K QED, Inc . , 4 38 U. S

. 1 ( 19 78 ) ( no r i g ht und erthe fi rs t am endm ent to entera county j ai l, i nter vi ew in m at es , an d ta ke p ict u re s). InGa nnett C o . v . D ePa sq uale,8 N o. 10

- 2359 443 U
. S. 36 8, 39 1–93 ( 1979 ) , t he Courtdecl i ned to dec i de whethe r the c o ns ti tu ti o na l a ppr o ac h g o ve rni ng i nfo rm ati on kn ow n to o ffi ci al s o fthe executi ve bra nch shoul d be use d fo r i nfo rm ati on know n to the j ud i ci ar y, orwh etherther e s houl d be a speci fi c r i ght o facc ess u n d e r th e fi r s ta me n d me n tf o r s o me i n f o r ma t i o n kn o wn to j ud ges i n cri m i nal pros ecuti ons. Ins tea d Ga nnett he l d tha t, i fthe r e i s a right ofa cc es s, di sc l o su r e atthe en d of th e t ria l give s t h e p re ss ev er yt h in g t o w h ich it is c on st itu tio n ally en tit led . A p p ella n ts ’ br ief (a n d rep ly bri ef ) i n thi s co urt do not m enti onGa n n et t . N eit h er d id th e m ajorit y in We ch t
. W e d o not saythatGa nnettn e c e s s a r i l y r e s o l v e s the q u es tio n w h et h er d efe rre d rele as e o f j u ro rs ’ n am es is p er m iss ibl e. Ga nnettdeal t with a c l ai m o facc ess to a hear i ng on a defe nd ant’ s pretr i al m oti on to sup press evi dence. Per haps voi r dir e ( and j uror s’ n am es) sho uld be tr eat ed differ entl y a fterP ress-E nterp rise I

. Per haps other deci si ons, such a s Richm ond N ewspap ers, Inc. v. Virgini a , 448 U
. S. 55 5 ( 1980 ) , affect the a nsw er

— th ou gh i t bears re peati ng tha t m os t pos t- G annettdeci si ons deal with i nf o r m at i o n tha t m ade i ts way i nt o the r ecord o fthe l i ti gat i on, ratherthan i nfo rm ati on that has ye t t o be p resen ted i n cou rt. Cf. Sea ttle T i m e s C o . v. Rh ineh a rt, 46 7 U
. S. 20 ( 1984 ) (a p ro tect i ve or der forbi dd i ng the r el eas e ofi nfo rm ati on l ear ned in d iscover y, and not yet a dmi t t e d a t t r i a l, i s c o mpa t ib l e wi th the fi rs t a m e nd

m ent)

. H ow P res s -E nterp rise I a nd Sea ttle Tim es affect G annett ’ s concl usi on about defe rr ed acce ss to i nfo rm ati on k no wn to the j udg e an d l i ti g an ts , b utno t ut te r ed i n a cour tr oo m , is a q uesti on that has notbee n anal yze d

— notN o. 10

- 2359 9 b y t h e Su p re m e C ou rt, no t b y t h e m ajorit y in We ch t, a nd n o tb y th e l i t i g a n t s i n th i s a p p e a l

. A n d th e S u p r e me Court often r em in d s otherj ud ges thattheym ust f ol l ow all of it s d ec isio n s, ev en th os e t h at se em inc om p at ible w i th m or e r ecento nes, unti l the J usti ces them sel ves del i vert h e coup de gr âce. E berha rt v. U nited Sta tes , 54 6 U
. S. 12 (2005); St at eO i l Co. v. Khan , 522 U
. S. 3, 20 (1997). The r e i s an o th erpo te nt i alc o m pl i ca ti o n in a nal y zing th is m at te r thr o ug h the l en s o fthe fi r sta m en dm en t. The j uror s’ nam es w ent unm enti oned duri ng vo i r dir e no t because o fthe j ud ge’ s deci si on but b ecause o f§1 0( a) o f th e d istri ct cou rt’s p lan for im p lem en ting th e Jury Se l ecti on and S er vi ce A ct. ( W e quote fro m thi s bel ow .) I n the N orthe r n Di st r i cto fI l l i no i s, the na m es o fpe r so ns consi dered f orj ury ser vi ce a nd notse ate d are neve r re veal ed i n pu b lic; al l r efer ences du ring vo i r dir e there

f or e a re to num ber s. Th e j u rors chos en f orse rv i ce a t th e en d o fv o i r di r e al so wer e ca l l ed bynumbe r . W hy num ber s then, r atherthan nam es? One possibi l i ty i s that the par ti es tr eat ed the ju dge’ s deci si on ( w hi ch theym ay ha ve learn e d i n cha m bers) as an i nform al gag order, preve nti ng the m fro m speak i ng the nam es in co urt orto r epo r te r s o ut ofc o ur t. Buta no th erpo ss ibi l i tyi s th atthe litig an ts th em se lve s t h in k t h at th e jur or s’ n am es sh ou ld be w ithh eld un tilth e t riali s over. T ha t is th e pros ecu tor’s v i e w; wh e th e r i ti s d e fe n d a nt s’ vi ew we d o n o tkn o w. (D efe n d an ts e lec te d n ott o p ar tic ip at e in th is a p p ea l.) T h is m ak es i t ha r d t o c ho o se whethe r we sh o ul d t r eatthe j ud ge’ s deci si on a s a part i alclo sure of voi r dir e co ver ed by P ress-E nterp rise I

or a s a ri gh t-of- acc ess situa tion m ore l i ke K QED an d p ot en tia lly Ga nnett
.10 N o. 10

- 2359 I ns te ad o fs ta r tingwi thth e fi r sta m en dm en t, we th i nk i t b e s t t o s t a r t wi th s t a t ut e s a nd the c o mm o n l aw

— for ther e i s a com m on- l aw r i ght o facc ess bythe pu bl i c to i nfo rm ati on that a ffects the reso lu ti on o ffedera l sui ts. Se e N ixon v. War ne rCom m uni ca t i ons, Inc . , 43 5 U.S

. 58 9, 597– 99 (1 978); In reRepor t e rs Com m i t t e ef orFre e dom of

t he P ress , 77 3 F
. 2d 1325 , 13 31–3 3 ( D.C. Ci r. 19 85) ( Sca l i a, J. ); U nion O il Co
. of Califor nia v. Le avell, 22 0 F
. 3d 562, 567– 68 (7th C ir. 2000); Ba xterInte rnati o n al, Inc. v. Abbott La bo rato r i es , 297F.3d 54 4 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ). A co u rtsh ou ld n ev er be gin w ith th e C on st itu tio n . S ee , e.g., New Yo rk Tran sit A uth o rity v . B eaz er, 4 40 U. S

. 5 68 , 5 82 –8 3 ( 1979); Reh m an v. Gonz a les , 441 F.3d 50 6, 508– 09 (7th C ir. 2006). So m eti m es const i tuti onaladj ud i cati on i s e sse nti al, as w hen a case co m es to the S up re m e Cour t fro m a sta te co ur t an d o nl y fede r ali ss ues a r e o pent o c o ns i der at i o n. T h at w as th e s itu at ion inP ress-E nterp rise I a nd II
. But fede r alc o ur ts may r egul at e th ei r o wn pr o ce dur es a nd sh o ul d do s o s en sibl y . Onl y i fa l i ti g an t be l i ev es tha t th e f ede r a l j ud i c i a r y ’ s un de r s t a nd i ng o f the b e s t wa y to deci de abo ut the ti m e a t which t o re l eas e j u ro rs ’ nam es vi ol ate s the Consti tuti on would i t be appropr i ate to b ro ac h th at to p ic. N e i th er th e Su p re m e C ou rtn or th is ci r cui t ha s dec i ded unde r whatc ircum st an ce s, a nd aft er w h at p ro c ed u re s, j u ro rs ’ n am es m ay be ke p t c on fide nt i a l u nt i l the t r i a l ’ s e nd

. Bu t these ar e no t s ubj ects o n w h ich we need to m ake m uch headw ay, gi ven the pre sum pti on i n favo r ofdi sclosure

— a p re s u m p tion th at so far has not been overcom e, bec au se th e d istri ct cou rt di d n ot aff ord an op p ortu ni t y t o p r e s e n te v i d e n c e a n d d i d n o tma k e a nyN o. 10

- 2359 11 fi nd i ngs o ff act. That pre su m pti on co m es not onl y fro m th e c o mm o n- l a w t r a di t i o n o f o pe n l i t i g a t i o n b utal so f r o m t he J ur y S e l e c t i o n a nd S e r v i c e A ct, 2 8 U. S

. C. §§ 1861 –78. S ecti on 1 863 say s that e ach di str i ct c ourtm ust adopt a pla n f or j ury sel ecti on, and § 1863 ( b) (7) p ro vi des that each pl an m ust “ fi x the ti m e when the nam es draw n fro m the qualifi ed j ury w heelshal l be disc l ose d to parti es and to the publ ic

. ” (Em p ha sis add ed

. ) T he answ ers “neve r” o r “aftertr i al ” a re poss ibl e under thi s l anguage b u t const i tute an exce pti on t o the no rm o fdi scl osur e, ane xc ept i o n tha t ne eds j us ti fi ca ti o n. Se cti on 1 863(b) ( 7) ad ds: “I fthe pla n perm i ts these na m es t o b e m ade pub l i c, i t m aynever th el es s per m i t th e chi ef judge o fthe dist ri ct c ourt, o r such other dist ri ct cour t j ud ge as the pl an m ay provi de, t o ke ep thes e na mes c o nfi de nt i a l i n a ny c a s e whe r e the i nt e r e s ts of j us tice so requ ire.” T h e plan ad op ted by the N orthe rn D istri ct of I ll inois conte m p lates tha t the nam es of venire m em b ers who ar e quest i oned but e xcused w i l l notbe re veal ed to the pu b lic, but that the nam es ofthe sea ted j urors an d alternates w il l be, as soon as they are sw orn to ser vi ce. S ecti on 1 0( a) r eads: “N o perso n shal l m ake pu bl i c o r disc los e t o any per son, unl ess so o rder ed by a j ud ge ofthi s Court, the n am es draw n fro m the Qu al i fi ed J ur y W he elt o s er ve i n thi s Cou r t unt i l the fi r stda y o fthe j uror s’ te rm o fse rv i ce. A n y j ud ge ofthi s Courtm ay or der that the nam es ofj uror s involv ed in a tr i al pr es i ded o ve r by th at j udg e r emai n co nfi den ti al i f th e i nter est s o f ju st ice so re quir e. ” Ther e’ s the “inter est s o f j usti ce” excepti on, wh i ch i m pli es a nee d fo r som e pr oce d ure to m ake th e nec ess a r y f ind ing. T he Sup rem e C ou rt12 N o. 10

- 2359

m ad e t h is p oin t in Walle r v. G eorgi a , 467 U
. S. 3 9, 48 (1984), w h en r ej ecting an ar gum ent that a pre tr i alhear i ng co u ld be c l o se d j us t as a matt ero fdi sc r et i o n: [ T]he partyse eking to c los e the hear i ng m ust advance a n ove rr i ding i nter estthati s l i kel y t o be prej ud i ced, the cl osur e m u st be no b ro ader than ne ces sa r yt o pr o te cttha t i nt er es t, the t r i alc o urt m us t co ns i derr ea so nabl e al te r na ti ve s to c l o sing the pr oce edi ng, and i t m ust m ake fi nd i ngs a dequate t o supp or t the cl osur e. That’ s a l so tr u e ofo rder s pro vi ding f orthe anonym i ty ofj urors . A l though defer re d rel eas e o fj uror s’ nam es r e qu i r e s l e s s j us t i fi c a t i o n tha n do e s a no ny mi t y, a n a ppropri ate i nquir y into the f acts r em ai ns nece ssa ry . At the he ar i ngo n the mot i o n t o i nt er ve ne

— th e o n ly occa si on o n w hi ch the dist ri ct j ud ge f or m al l y a nnounced and explained his deci si on

— t h e jud ge ex p ressed conc ern that j uror s would be peppered w i th em ai l and i nstantm es sage quer i es i n thi s hi gh- vi sibi l i ty case . These i nc o m i ngmess ag es may be v i ewe d a s h ar as sment( th e anti c i pa t i o n o fwh i c h wo ul d ma k e i tmo r e di ffi c ul tto fin d p eo p le w illing to se rv e a s jur or s) a n d ce rt ain ly w oul d tem pt the j uror s t o engag e in f orbi dd en r ese ar ch an d di sc us si o n. I nde pen den t r es ea r chi s no t al l o wed, a nd disc ussi on m ust wai t unti l del iber ati on s begi n. These ar e s er iou s c on c er n s . If th e p ro b lem th at th e jud ge an tic ipates has co m e t o pass in other h igh-vi sibi l i ty case s, then som ethi ng m ust be done. S om e a l ternati ves to ( tem pora ry ) anonym i ty

— sequester i ng the j uror s o r re quir i ng the m to su rrend er their sm art p hon es an d com p ut e rs

— c ou ldN o. 10

- 2359 13 be wors e forthe j uror s a nd the l i ti gants , ev en tho ugh they m i ght b e pr efer abl e t o the pr ess . B ut bec au se the j udg e ac te d wi th o ute vi den ce , a nd th e argu m en ts at th e brief h e a r in g on th e m otion to intervene post- dated th e j ud ge’ s deci si on ( w hi ch had been conve yed to j uror s the previ ous day) , w e d o n ot know the a nsw er s t o som e pot enti al l y i m port ant quest i ons. Havej uror s in other pu bl i ci zed cas es been pester ed el ectr oni cal l y ( em ai l, i nstant m ess aging, o r pho n e ca l l s) , o r b y re p or te rs ca m p e d o u t o n th eir d oo rs te p s? If j u d ge s in oth e r high-visibi li ty case s hav e told th e j urors to ignore an y uns o l i ci te d e m ai l o r t ex t m es sa g es, h ave tho se i nstr ucti ons been obe yed? I f not, do any pract i cal al ternati ves t o sequ est ra ti on r em ai n? The Departm ent o fJ usti ce, and the l aw yer s w h o represe nt the pre ss, m ay be abl e t o pr es en t ev i den ce a nd a r g um en ts that w ou l d b e he l pful in a d d re ssi ng tho se i ssues . Find i ngs o ff act m ade after an appropr i ate hear i ng m u st be r espect ed on a pp eal unl ess cle ar l y e r r o ne o us . Butno e vi den ce was t ak en, no a r g ume nte nt e r t a i ne d, n o a l te r na t i v e s c o ns i de r e d, and no fi nd in gs m ade befor e thi s deci si on was announced to the j uror s. W hat e vi dence the j ud ge m ust consi der d epends on wh at the par ti es subm i t. W e d o not i m plythatany ofthe subj ec ts ment i o ne d abo ve i s i ndi spe ns ab l e to a de ci si o n. I n Blac k the par ti es chose notto pre sent any e vi dence, an d the c o ur t th ende ci d ed i n l i g hto fthe pa r ti es ’ a r g um en ts a nd the j udg e’ s ex per i en ce wi thj ur o r s’ c oncerns and beha v i o r . T he di s t r i c tj ud g e i n thi s c a s e h a s r e fe r r ed el l i pti cal l y t o eff or ts to conta ct hi m byem ai l and i n other14 N o. 10

- 2359

w ay s; p er h ap s p u tt in g d et a i l s on th e re c or d w ou ld h elp to make c o nc r et e so m e po te nt i ale ffec ts o fdi sclosing j ur o r s’ na m es whi l e th e t ri ali s unde r way . W ha t i s es se nti al

— whato cc ur r ed i n Blac k but not so f ari n thi s ca se

— is a n o ppo r tu ni tyf o r the pa r ti es ( i nc l udi ngthe i ntervenor s) to m ake thei r vi ew s know n i n detai l, f ol l owed by a c on sidere d decis i on that incl ud es an expl anati on w hy al ternati ves to del aye d rel eas e o fthe j u ro rs ’ nam es w oul d be unsat i sf acto ry . I nstea d ofco nstr ucti ng a fram ew or k forhear i ngs, fin d in gs , an d ru l e s o f d ec isio n, w e t h in k it b es t t o w ait unti l a he ar i ng has been hel d. W e do not deci de to day w hen it is ap propri ate to del ay the r el eas e o fj uror s’ nam es. That s ubj ect w i l l notbe ri pe unti l the dist ri ct j ud ge has pro vi de d a bett erbas i s f orundersta nd i ng not only t h e r is k s of releasing the nam es before the tri al’s end, but al so othe r opti ons ( and the r i sk that al ternati ves su ch as cau tionary instru ctions w il l fai l)

. W hen consid eri ng thi s s ubj ect, the dist ri ct j ud ge sh ou ld ta ke ac c ou n t o f th e Su p re m e C ou rt ’s o b se rv at ion in P resl ey v. Georgia , 130 S. Ct

. 721, 724 (2010 ), that, before cl o singa ny pa r t o fthe c r i m i na l pr o ce ss t o the pub l i c ( th e p ar t a t is su e in Pr e s l ey w as vo ir d ire ), a j u d ge n oton ly m ust m ake the fi nd i ngs r equi re d by Wa llerbut al so m ust co nsi der a l ternati ves to secr ecy, wh etheror not th e la w ye rs p r op os e s om e. T h e jud ge inP resleyhad ex p ressed conc ern th at, i f m em bers of the p u b lic w ere i n the c o ur tr o o m , the y mightc o nduc t cl an des tine c o nver sat i ons w i th m em ber s o fthe venire orm ake r em ar ks th at would cause prej ud i ce e ven i fthe veni re perso n di d n o tr e pl y . T o thi s the J us t i c e s r e pl i e d:N o. 10

- 2359 15 The gener i c r i sk ofj uror s o verhear i ng prej ud i ci al re m ar ks, unsubstanti at ed byany speci fi c thr eat o r i nc i den t, i s i nhe r en t whene ve r mem be r s o fthe p u b lic a re p re se n t d u rin g th e se lec tio n of j u ro rs . I f bro ad concern s ofthi s s or t were suffi ci ent t o ove rr i de a defendant’s co nsti tuti onalr i ght t o a pu bl i c tr i al, a cour t co uld e xcl ud e the publ i c from j ury sel ecti on a l m ostas a m att ero fco urse . 1 3 0 S

. C t
. at7 2 5
. L i k e wi s e a j u d g e mu s tfi n d s o me unu s ual risk to j u st ify ke ep in g jur or s’ n am es co n fid en tia l; i t i s no t en o ug h t o po i ntt o po ss ibi l i ti es tha t ar e pr es en t i n e v e r yc r i mi na l p r o s e c ut i o n. T he g r e a tp ub l i c i nter est i n thi s prose c u ti on m ay i nd eed cr eat e e xcepti onalr i sks , a nd the t r i a l ’ s l e ng th mayma k e s e ques tr a t i o n e xc e ptionally un attrac tive as an alternat ive, bu t th e s e a re qu e s t i o ns tha ts ho ul d b e e xp l o r e d o n the r e c o r d. To a cc o m m o dat e th e j ur o r s, the di st r i ctj udg e i s taki ng ev i de nc e o nl y f o ur da y s a we e k

. I t the r e f o r e s ho ul d b e po ss ibl e to ho l d a pr o m pt he ar i ngwi th o uti nt er r upt i ng the t ri al

. N othing i n thi s op ini on s houl d be r ead to presa ge th e a pp ro pri ate o utcom e o fthathear i ng, o r of a nyl a t e r a pp e a l s ho ul d o ne b e fi l e d. T h e d ist ric t jud ge ’s d efe rre d -d isc lo s u re ord er is vacat ed, and the case i s r em anded with instr ucti ons to gr ant the m oti on t o i nter ven e and hol d procee dings c on sis te n t w ith th is o p i n ion . Th e jur or s’ n am es w ill re m ai n confi denti al, h ow ever, unti l a hear i ng has been he l d a nd a n e w de c i s i o n r e nd e r e d.

7- 15- 10