2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

8-1-2008 

# U SA v . W echt
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4767

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . W e cht " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 608. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/6081 P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT C as e N o: 07- 4767 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. CY RI L H. WEC HT W PX I , I nc; T RI BU NE

- RE VI E W P UB L I S HI NG C OM P ANY;

P G P UB L I S HI NG C OM P ANY d/b/ a Pi t t s bur gh Post

- G aze t t e, A p p e llan ts

O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e A r t hurJ

. Schw ab

D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 06- C R

- 26

Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL

. A

. R

. 34. 1( a)

J anuary8, 20082 B e f o re : S M IT H , F IS H E R , a n d V A N A N T W E R P E N , C irc u it Judges ( Fi l ed: A ugus t1, 2008 ) D a v id J. B e ra rd in e lli W alt er P

. D eF o rest, III D e F o re st, K o sc e ln ik , Y o k iti s, K a p lan & B e ra rd in e lli 436 Seventh A venue 3000 K opper s B ui l di ng Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 C ouns el f orW P X I , I nc. D avi d A

. St r as s bur ger S t r a s s b u r g e r , M c Ke n n a , Gu t n i c k & Po t t e r , P

. C. 444 L i ber t yA venue Sui t e 2200, Four G at ew ayC ent er Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222 C ouns el f orTri bune Revi ew P ubl is hi ng C o. D av id J. B ir d W

. T h o m as M cG o u g h , Jr. Jo sep h F

. R o d k ey , Jr. Re e d Smi t h LLP 435 Si xt h A venue Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 C ouns el f orP G P ubl is hi ng C om

pany A m yL . B a rre tte Je rryS . M c D e v itt J agan N

. R anj an3 M ark A

. R ush Ki r k p a t r i c k & Lo c k h a r tPr e s t o n Gat e s El l i s LLP 535 Sm i t hfi el d St r eet H enryW

. O l i verB ui l di ng Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222 R i char d L

. T hor nbur gh Ki r k p a t r i c k & Lo c k h a r tPr e s t o n Gat e s El l i s LLP 1 7 3 5 N e w Y o rk A v e n u e , N .W

. Sui t e 500 W as hi ngt on, D

. C

. 20006 C ouns el f orC yr i lW echt R ebec ca R. H ayw ood O f f i c e o f U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y 700 G r antSt r eet Sui t e 4000 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 C ouns el f orU ni t ed Stat es of

A m er i ca

OP I NI ON

S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge

. I.
W e i s s ue thi s opi ni on i n s uppor tof ouror derfi l ed onO ur order decr eed that“j uror and prospecti ve jur ors’ 1 nam es ” s hal l be di s cl os ed pr i ort o t he s w ear i ng and e m p a n e lm e n t o f

th e ju ry . T h e ter m “ p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro r” re f e rs to a mem berof the veni r e. T he t erm “j ur or ” r efe r s t o a mem berof t he veni r e w ho i s chos en t o be par t of t he actual t r i al j ur y . For th e sa k e o f

c lar ity , this o p in io n w ill u se th e ter m “ trial ju ro rs” to d e sc rib e p e o p le in th e latte r c a teg o ry . W e a lso e m p h a siz e th a t, r e f e r r i n g t o t h e n a me s o f

“ j u r o r [ s ] a n d p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s , ” we anti ci pated t hat the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s di s c l os ur e w ou l d d i st i ng uis h be t wee n t h e n a me s o f t r i a l j u r o r s a n d t h o s e o f p r o s p e c t i ve juro rs. Itap p ea rs t h at i n th e d iscl o su re tha t fo ll o w ed the e n try of ouror der , t he D i s t r i ct C our t di d notm ake s uch a di s t i nct i on. See N o tic e o f F i l in g P ro s p e c tiv e J u ro r L is t, U ni t ed Stat es v. 4 J anuary9, 2008 i n t he mat t erof U ni t ed Stat es v. W

echt

. W P X I, Inc. , P G P ub l i shi ng C o m p a n y , do i ng bu si ness as P i t t s bur gh P os t-G a ze tte , a n d T r i b u n e - R e v i e w P u b l i s h i n g C o . ( c o l l e c t i v e l y, t he “M edi a- I nt ervenor s ”) , fi l ed a mot i on chal l engi ng an or derof t he U n it ed S t at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a announc i ng j ur ys el ect i on pr ocedur es t o be us ed atan i m pendi ng cr i m i nal t r i al

. Speci fi cal l y , t he M edi aIn ter v e n o r s c h a llen g e d th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n s (1 ) to e m p a n e l an a n o n ym o u s tria l ju ry , an d (2 ) to c o n d u c t voirdir e t hr ough us e of a w r i t t en ques t i onnai r e and w i t hout veni r eper s ons phy s i cal l ypr es enti n an open c our t r oom unt i l t he p o o l o f p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s w a s r e d u c e d t o 4 0

. I n o u rJ a n u a r y 9 o rd e r, w e v a c a ted th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r to th e e x ten t th a t it r es t r i ct s publ i c ac ces s t o t he nam es of t r i al j ur or s orpr os pect i ve ju ro rs . W e d e n ie d a ll o th e r r e lie f s o u g h t. 1W echt , N o . 0 6 -C R -26 (W

. D

. P a. Jan

. 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 ). In M a yo f

2 0 0 6 , the M e d ia- In ter v e n o r s m o v e d to 2 i nterven e i n an effo rt t o unseal cert ai n court fi l i ng s. In r espon se t o t hos e mot i ons , t he C our tuns eal ed ce r t ai n document s . W echt and t he G overnm ent appea l ed s ever al rul i ngs , and W echtfi l ed a p eti ti o n fo r m an d am u s see k ing rev iew o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to re c u s e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. W

echt , 484 F. 3d 194 ( 3d C i r . 2007)

. Pr etr i al pr epar at i on pr ocee ded in t he D is tr ic t C o u rt d u ri n g th e p e n d e n c yo f th o s e a p p e a ls

. 5 II.
O n J anuary20, 2006, a gra nd j ur yr etur ned an 84- count i ndi ctm entagai ns tD r . C yr i l H

. W echt

. A s w e not ed i n deci di ng an ea r l i eri nt er l ocut or yappea l i n t hi s m at t er , “[t ] he 84- count i ndi ctm entas s er t s th a t[ W e cht ] unl aw ful l yus ed hi s publ i c off i ce a s th e c o ro n e r o f

A lleg h e n yC o u n ty , P e n n sy lv a n ia, f o r p riv a te fi nanci al gai n. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. W

echt , 484 F. 3d 194, 198 ( 3d C i r. 20 07 ). T he o ffen ses charge d in c luded t heft of ho nest s er vi ces , m ai l and w i r e fr aud, and t heft fr om an o rga ni zat i on r ece i vi ng fede r al funds

. T he ca s e w as as s i gned t o J udge A r t hur Schw ab of the U

. S. D i s t r i ctC our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. D ur i ng a pr etr i al confe r enc e o n Jul y12, 2006, th e p a rties re p o rte d to th e D istric t C o u rt th a t th e yh a d a g re e d to u se a 2 4 -pa g e q u esti o n n aire co n tai n ing 6 9 q u esti o n s in the jury sel ect i on process. 2
T he fol l ow i ng day , on J ul y13, 2006, t he B oar d of J udges6 for the W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ent er ed an admi ni s t r at i ve or derdi r ect i ng t hat “al l j ur or s s hal l be i dent i fi ed i n c o u r td u r i n g t h e j u r ys e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s b yh i s / h e ra s s i gned j ur ornum berO N L Y

. A prosp ec ti ve j ur ors hal l no l ongerbe i dent i fi ed byori dent i fyhi m s el f or her s el f byname. ” In re Jury A dm i nis tr at i on P rocedur es , M i s c. 06- 211 ( W

. D

. Pa. J ul y13, 2 0 0 6 ). T h e o rd e r f

u r th e r p ro v id e d th a t “a n ya n d a ll j u ro r lists g e n e ra ted b yth is C o u rt f o r u se in th e ju ry se lec tio n p ro c e ss sh a ll be dee m ed conf

i dent i al and pr opert yof the C our tand s hal l not be r emoved fr om t he C our tatanyt i m e. ” I d. T h e ju ro r lists w er e ava i l abl e onl yt o couns el w ho w er e r equi r ed t o exec ut e a rec eipt fo r th e li st a n d to re tu rn itu p o n co m p let ion o f ju ry s e le c tio n . A dayl at er , on Ju ly14, J udge Schw ab i s s ued a pr etr i al or deraddr es s i ng t he us e of the j ur yques t i onnai r e and es t abl i s hi ng pr ocedur es t o be empl oy ed dur i ng v o ir dir e . S e c tio n A o f

th e o rd e r n o ted th a t th e su m m o n s to b e iss u e d to pr os pect i ve j ur or s w oul d be mai l ed t ogetherw i t h t he fi nal j ur or qu est io n n a ire, a cov er l et t er fr om t he C ou rt , and i nst ruct i on s. S ec ti o n B o f th e o rde r pe rt aine d to th e juryq u esti o n n aire p r ocedur e. Par agr aph 5 of Sec t i on B of the or ders t at ed:

“ P u rsu a n t to th e d e c isio n o f th e B o a rd o f Ju d g e s o f

th is D istric t, couns el s hal l nothave a cce s s t o t he names and addr es s es of the prospecti ve j urors . T herefore, Jury A dm i nis t rat or M ord e r is instructed to rem o v e a n d retain the last p ag e o f th e Ju ry Q ues t i onnai r e s et t i ng for t h t he pr os pect i ve j ur or s ’ name s and curr entaddr es s es . ” A l t hough t hi s di r ect i ve w as m or e r es t r i ct i ve7 t han the J ul y13, 2006 s t andi ng or der , nei ther W echtnort he G overnm ent obj ect ed. Par agr aph 6 of Sect i on B o f th e orde r s chedul ed a hear i ng forSept ember19, 2006, t o per m i tcouns el t o r evi ew t he compl et ed j ur yques t i onnai r es , al bei tw i t houtt he names a nd addr es s es of the j ur or s , and t o conferamong t hemsel ves as t o pr os pect i ve j ur o rs t hatt heydi d notbel i eve s houl d b e p art of t he veni r e. J ur ys el ect i on w as s chedul ed for O ct ober11, 2006.
I n m id-Sept ember , aft erhear i ng or al ar gum ent s i n t he fi r s tW echtappea l , t hi s C our t gr ant ed a s t ay of t he t r i al pendi ng its re s o lu tio n o f th e v a ri o u s a p p e a ls

. U ni t ed Stat es v. W

echt , N o. 0 6 -30 9 8 (3d C ir

. S ep t. 1 5 , 2 0 0 6 ). A s a re su lt , the 3 0 0 v en ir e me mb e r s wh o h a d b e e n s u mm o n e d we r e r e l e a s e d

. Af t e rwe i s s ued ourm andat e, J udge Schw ab ent er ed an or deron N ovember 2 6 , 2007, announci ng t he j ur ys el ect i on pr ocedur es he w oul d fol l ow . T he or ders t at ed i n t he fi r s t par agr aph thatt he “juryw il l be a n o n ym o u s. ” T h e C o u rtd ir ec ted th e jury admi ni s t r at or t o i s s ue 400 s um m ons es . T hi s t i m e, how ever , t he s um m ons w oul d not be ac compani ed byt he j ur orques t i onnai r e. In ste a d , the v e n ire m e m b e rs w o u ld b e c a lled in g ro u p s o f six ty t o a p p e a r i n t h e j u r y a s s e mbl y r o o m wh e r e t h e y wou l d r ece i ve the st an d ard juryo ri en tat ion an d co m p let e the juryq u esti o n n aire fa s hi oned fort hi s cas e. D ur i ng t he af t ernoon of ea ch s es s i on, t he j ur yadmi ni s t r at orw oul d pr ovi de fourcopies o f the c o m p let ed juryq u esti o n n aire to the D istri ct C o u rt
. T h e C o u rt w oul d t hen pr ovi de the ques t i onnai r e t o couns el t o r evi ew for t he purpos e of maki ng chal l enges forcaus e and obt ai ni ng8 inf o rm atio n f

o r pe rem p torych all en g es. T h e D istri ct C o u rt i ns t ruct ed thati tw oul d rul e on anycha l l enges forcaus e ea ch a f ter n o o n o r th e f

o llo w in g m o rn in g . F in a l se lec tio n o f th e p e tit j ur yw as t ent at i vel ys chedul ed t o begi n on J anuary23, 2008, d u ri n g w h ich th e p arti es w o u ld ex erc ise th e ir p ere m p tory c h a lle n g e s . W echtobj ect ed in tera lia t o juryanonym i t y , t he l i m i t at i on on acc es s t o t he ques t i onnai r es , and the f ac t thatt he D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er d id “n o t i n d icate w h ethe r the v o ird ir e q u e stio n s w ill b e g iv e n to e a c h g ro u p in o p e n c o u rt o r e v e n a t all pr i ort o t he forca u se d eterm i nat i ons . . . . ” I n a s ubs equent fi l i ng, W echtobj ect ed t o t he r emoval of the s i gnatur e page f r om t he j ur y ques t i onnai r e and r eques t ed t hat eac h pr os pect i ve j ur or be subject t o voi rdi r e i n open court
. O n D ece m ber4, t he M ed ia-Interve n o rs fil ed a p e titio n w ith the D istri ct C o u rt obj ect i ng t o t he anonym ous j ur yand the l ack of i n- per s on, p u b lic v o ird ir e in o p e n c o u rt
. O n D ece m ber 21, 2007, J udge Schw ab i s s ued a 64- page or der r evi ew i ng t he pr ocedur al hi s t or y r el at i ve t o j ur ys el ect i on and voi rdi r e. O r der of C our t R e: J ury Sel ect i on, V oi r D i r e, A nd O therPretri al Issue s, N o . 2 :06 -cr-00 0 2 6 -A JS (W

. D

. Pa. D ec. 21, 2007) ( “D ec. 21 O r der ”)

. I n t hi s or der , J udge Schw ab r ei t er at ed hi s ear l i erdecl ar at i on t hatt he “j ur yw i l l be a n o nym ous , ” butJ udge Schw ab pr ovi ded t w o r eas ons forhi s pr efe r ence 3 for t his t erm . F i rs t , he sai d thatthe t erm “ano ny m ou s” i nappr opr i at el yconnot ed a “ cl andest ine, forbi dden, and obs cur e” j ur y panel

. ” D ec. 21 O r der at 21 n. 5 ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. C ar

pa , 2 7 1 F

. 3 d 9 6 2 , 9 6 3 n . 1 (11 th C ir

. 2 0 0 1 )). Second, he s ugges t ed thatt he j ur yw as not rea l l yanonym ous b e c a u se th e p a r ti e s k n e w e v e ry th in g a b o u t th e ju ro rs b u t th e ir n am e s . I

d. ( ci t i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ow m an , 302 F. 3d 1228, 1236 ( 11t h C i r . 2002) )

. J udge Schw ab nonethel es s us es t he te r m s “ a n o n ym o u s” a n d “ in n o m in a te” in ter c h a n g e a b lyin h is D ec em b er 2 1 o rde r. In this op inion , w e w il l use the term “anonym ous . ” 9 no ted that he pr efe r r ed the t erm “i nnom i nat e j ur y . ” D ec. 21 3 O r d er at 2 1 n. 5. A ddi t i onal l y , J udge Schw ab opi ned thatt he v o ir d ire p ro c e ss w o u ld p ro v id e th e p a rties w ith a m p le i nfor m at i o n ab outt he j ur or s . D ec. 21 O r derat21 n. 5. A ft er se tti n g f o rth th e f a c to rs to b e c o n sid e re d in d e c id in g w h e th e r to e m p a n e l an a n o n ym o u s ju ry , Ju d g e S c h w a b a d h e re d to h is ear l i er rul i ng t o empanel s uch a j ur y . D ec. 21 O r derat28–30. N ot i ng t hatt he M edi a- I nt ervenor s had cha l l enged t he B oar d of J udges ’ or der( M i s c. 06- 211) as uncons t i tut i onal , he di s cl ai m ed anyr el i ance on t hi s or deras t he bas i s of hi s deci s i on. D ec. 21 O rd e r a t 1 8 n .4

. I n hi s D ece m ber21 or der , J udge Schw ab al s o expl ai ned th a t “[t ]he cou rt w i l l be r eview i ng t he Jury Q uest i on nair e in open courtatt he s ame t i m e as couns el , s o rul i ngs m aybe made on t he r ecor d, w i t h m edi a i n at t endanc e t o heart he r eas on( s ) for10 eac h ‘ forcaus e’ di s m i s s al , by j ur ornum ber

. ” D ec. 21 O r derat 33. T he or derfur t hernot ed that“the C o u rt , as i tal w ay s has done thr oughout t hi s cas e, w i l l pr ovi de the medi a ac ces s t o t he C ou rtroom du ri ng t he si x (6 ) d a y i nit i al j urysel ect i on process (i n clud ing all ruli n g s o n the re co rd re : ‘ fo r ca u se’ d ec is io n s); and dur i ng voi rdi r e pr oces s of the pool of 40 j ur or s u sing t he in d iv id u a l v o ird ir e q u e s tio n s . . . .” D e c . 2 1 O rd e r a t 3 7

. J udge Schw ab expl ai ned that “the fi nal j ur ys el ect i on pr oces s w i l l comm ence on J anuary23, 2008, and copi es of the compl et ed J ur y Q u es t i onnai r es of the pool of 40 pr os pect i ve juro rs w il l b e return ed o n ly to the co u n sel, p arti es, a n d the C o u rt (w ith a c o p y o f the last p ag e o f th e Ju ryQ u esti o n n aire id e n tif y in g th e n a m e s a n d a d d re s s e s in o rd e r b y ju ro r n u m b e r) .” D ec. 21 O r derat44. D ur i ng t hi s fi nal s t age of t he pr oces s , t he D i s t r i ct J udge not ed t hat he w oul d as k t en voi r di r e ques t i ons of eac h pr os pect i ve j ur or . D ec. 21 O r derat40–41 ( l i s t i ng t he q u esti o n s). T h e o rde r spe cified that the M ed ia-Interv en o rs w oul d, at t he concl us i on of the tr i al , be gi ven ac ces s t o r evi ew t he j ur yques t i onnai r e, excl udi ng t he l as tpage w hi ch cont ai ned t he jur or ’ s name and addr es s . D ec. 21 O r derat34–35. T he o rd e r c o n tain s n o in d ica tio n th a t th e M e d ia- In ter v e n o rs w o u ld be gi ven ac ces s t o t he nam es oraddr es s es of the pr os pect i ve and trial ju ro rs a t an ytim e b e f o re o r a f ter W e c h t’s tria l.
T he M edi a- I nt ervenor s t i m e l yap p e al ed the D ece m ber21 o rd e r. T h e ym o v e d f

o r su m m a ryre v e rsa l u n d e r T h ird C irc u it I nt ernal O per at i ng Pr ocedure (“ I

. O

. P. ”) 10. 6 or , i n t heT h e f u ll ti tl e o f th is ap p lic a tio n is “T h e M ed ia’s 4 E m er gencyM ot i on ForSum m ary R ever s al O f The D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s O r derD at ed D ecem b er 21, 2007, O r , I n T he A lt ernat i ve, E xpedi t ed R el i ef I n T he For m O f A St ayO f J ury S e lec tio n A n d T ria l P ro c e e d in g s P e n d in g D isp o sitio n O f T h is A ppeal

. ” T he ful l t i t l e i s “G overnm ent ’ s R es pons e To T he 5 M edi a’ s E m er gencyM ot i on ForSum m ary R ev ersa l O f The D ist ri ct C our t ’ s O r derD at ed D ece m ber21, 2007, O r , I n T he A lt ern ati v e, E x p ed it ed R eli ef In T h e F o rm O f A S tayO f Ju ry S e lec tio n A n d T ria l P ro c e e d in g s P e n d in g D isp o sitio n [ O f ] T h is A ppeal

. ” T he ful l t i t l e i s “C yr i l H

. W echt ’ s R es pons e T o T he 6 M edi a’ s E m er gencyM oti o n F orSum m aryR ever s al O f The D i s t r i c tCou r t ’ s Or d e rDat e d Dec e mbe r2 1 , 2 0 0 7 , Or , I n The A lt ern ati v e, E x p ed it ed R e lief In T h e F o rm O f A S tayO f Ju ry S e lec tio n A n d T ria l P ro c e e d in g s P e n d in g D isp o sitio n O f T h is A ppeal

. ” 11 a lte rn a tiv e , f

o r a s ta y o f ju ry s e le c tio n . See M edi a’ s E m er gency M ot i on, U ni t ed St at es v. W echt , N o. 07- 4767 ( 3d C i r . D ec. 26, 2007)

. T he G overnm ent fi l ed a r es pons e oppos i ng the mot i on

4 ( G overnm ent ’ s R es pons e, U ni t ed St at es v. W echt , N o. 07- 4767 ( 3d C i r . J an. 2, 2008) ) , and W echtfi l ed a Respons e s uppor t i ng 5 i t ( W echt ’ s R es pons e, U ni t ed St at es v. W echt , N o. 07- 4767 ( 3d C i r . J an. 2, 2008) )

. T he m ot i ons panel r efe r r ed t he mat t ert o a 6 m eri t s pan el on January 2, 20 08 , deem i ng th e part i es’ s ubm i s s i ons on t he mot i on t o be thei rl egal br i efs and off er i ngT h e f u ll t it le of

the M ed ia’s R ep lyis “T h e M ed ia’s 7 R epl y i n Suppor t of E m er gency M ot i on forSum m aryR ever s al of the D i s t r i ctC our t ' s O r der dat ed D ece m ber 21, 2007, or , i n t he A lt ern ati v e, E x p ed it ed R eli ef in the F o rm o f a S tayo f Ju ry S e lec tio n a n d T ria l P ro c e e d in g s P e n d in g D is p o sitio n o f th is A p p e a l.” T he di s s entar gues t hat w e w oul d have benef i t t ed fr om 8 “addi t i onal br i efi ng” g iven t he fa ctt hatt he part i es ’ or i gi nal fil ing s fo cu sed o n the M ed ia-Interve n o rs’ req u est fo r sum m ary r e v e rs a l o r a s ta y . D is s e n t, i nfr a , a t 5 8 n . 4 4

. As n o t e d above, w e off er ed t he par t i es an opportuni t y t o fi l e s uppl ement al br i efs a f ter th e m a tter w a s re f

e rre d to a m e rits p a n e l, an d th e yc h o se to rel yon t heirprevi ou s fi l i ng s. 12 th e p a rt ie s a n o p p o rt u n ity to f ile s u p p le m e n ta l b ri e f

s . See O rde r, U ni t ed Stat es v. W

echt , N o . 0 7 -47 6 7 (3d C ir

. Ja n . 2 , 2 0 0 8 ). A fter the M ed ia-Interve n o rs fil ed a R ep lyto the G o v ern m en t’ s R es pons e ( M edi a’ s R epl y , U ni t ed St at es v. W echt , N o. 07- 4767 ( 3d C i r . J an. 4, 2008) ) , al l of t he par t i es s ubm i t t ed l et t er s s t at i ng 7 t hatt heyw oul d r el y o n t hei rpr evi ous fi l i ngs as t hei rbr i efs on t he merit s . I n an or derfi l ed on J anuary9, 2008, w e dec l ar ed

8 t hat [t ] o t h e e x tent that the D ist ri ct C o u rt ’ s or der re stric ts a c c e ss o f

M e d ia I n ter v e n o r-A p p e llan ts and def ens e couns el t o t he names of pr os pect i ve j urors w ho part i ci pate i n the sel ect i on process pr es cr i bed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t , t hos e pr ovi s i onsW e not ed thatM edi a- I nt ervenors w ere “nots eeki ng 9 ac ce ss to the juro rs’ ho m e a d d resse s o r th e a ctua l j u ry q u e s tio n n a ir e .” O rd e r a t 2 n .1 , U ni t ed Stat es v. W

echt , N o. 07- 47 67 (3d C i r. Jan. 9, 20 08 ). F or t hat reas on , w e do no tadd res s t hos e i s s ues her e. In o u r Ja n u a ry9 o r d e r , w e sta ted : “A p p e llate 10 j ur i s di ct i on exi s t s under t he col l at er al or der doctr i ne. ” O r derat 2 , U ni te d St at es v. W

echt , N o. 07- 4767 ( 3d C i r . J an. 9, 2008) ( ci t i ng C ohen v. B enef

i ci alI ndus

. Loan C or

p. , 337 U

. S. 541 13 of the or derar e V A C A T E D

. W e l ea ve t o t he di s cr et i on of the D is t r i ctC our tt he met hod and t i m i n g o f

d i s c l o s u r e o f

j u r o ra n d p r o s p e c t i ve j urors ’ nam es, excep tt hat di scl osure of those names s hal l be made pr i ort o the s w ear i ng and e m p a n e l m e n to f

t h a tj u r y. 9
O rd e r, U

n i t ed Stat es v. W

echt , N o. 07- 4767 ( 3d C i r . J an. 9, 2 0 0 8 ). W e d en ied a n yo th e r reli ef relati v e to th e v o ird ir e p r o c e e d in g s . Id

. W e d e n i e d t h e mot i o n f o r a s t a yas m oot beca us e ouror derw as i s s u ed p ri o rt o t he comm ence m entof tr ia l. I d.
III

. W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew t he M edia- Interven ors’ m o ti o n u n d er 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 9 1 an d the “ c o lla te ral ord er” doctr i ne. See Cohen v. B enef i ci alI ndus

. Loan C or

p. , 33 7 U. S. 10( 1949) )

. O ur di s s ent i ng col l eague now ar gues t hatt he col l at er al o rd e r d o c trin e d id n o t p r o v id e u s w ith ju risd ictio n to h e a r th is a p p e a l. See D is s e n t, i nfr a , a t 2

– 1 9

. W e a re su rp rise d th a t h e d id notr ai s e thi s purpor t ed j ur i s di ct i onal defe cti n hi s di s s ent t o our J a n u a ry 9 o rd e r. 14 541, 546–47 ( 1949)

. U nder28 U

. S. C

. § 1291, “[t ] he court s of appea l s . . . s hal l have j ur i s di ct i on of appe al s fr om al l fi nal d e c isio n s” o f

d istric t co u rts. O rd in a rily , this ru le “ p ro h ib its a p p e llate re v iew u n til c o n v ictio n a n d im p o sitio n o f se n ten c e ” in a c ri m in a l c a s e . F l anagan v. U ni t ed Stat es , 465 U

. S. 259, 263 (1 9 8 4 ). T h e c a teg o ryo f “ f in a l d e c isio n s” su b

jec t to a p p e llate revi ew un der § 129 1 al so i ncludes, ho w ever, “coll at eral orders ” t hat(1) “concl us i vel ydet erm i ne the di s put ed ques t i on, ” ( 2)

“ re so lv e a n im p o rta n t issu e c o m p lete lyse p a ra te f ro m th e m e rits of the ac t i on, ” and ( 3) ar e “e ffe ct i vel yunr evi ew abl e on appe al f r o m a f i n a l j u d g me n t
. ” C oopers & Lybr and v. Li ves ay , 437 U .S . 4 6 3 , 4 6 8

– 6 9 (1 9 7 8 ). W h e n d e c id in g w h e th e r a n o rd e r is a p p e a la b le a s a c o llate ra l o rd e r u n d e r § 1 2 9 1 , w e g iv e th is p r o v i s i o n o f

t h e s t a tu t e a “ p r a c t i c a l r a t h e rt h a n a t e c h n i cal cons t ruct i on. ” C ohen , 3 3 7 U .S . a t 5 4 6

. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. Schi avo , w e hel d t hata D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s o rd e r re stric tin g th e m e d ia f ro m p u b lish in g c e r ta in i nfor m at i on about a cr i m i nal t r i al w as appea l abl e undert he col l at er al or derdoctr i ne bec aus e i t“det erm i ned a mat t er i ndepende ntof the i s s ues t o be r es ol ved i n t he cri m inal pr ocee di ng i t s el f, bound per s ons w ho w er e non- par t i es i n theW e no t e t hat ou r dec i si on t o grant revi ew i n t his case 11 does not t hr eat en “t he com pel l i ng i nt er es t i n pr om ptt r i al s . ” 465 U

. S

. at26 5. B ecause w e decli ned t o g rantt he m edia’ s r equ est f o r a sta y , an d b e c a u se re lea sin g th e ju ro rs’ n a m e s d id n o t cr e a te a t i m e- cons um i ng bur den fort he D i s t r i ct C our t , ourrul i ng has p o se d n o d a n g e r to th e in ter e sts o f e ith e r W e c h t o r th e p u b lic in a s p e e d ytr ia l. 15 under l y i n g c r i mi n a l p r o c e e d i n g a n dh a d a s ubs t ant i al , cont i nui ng eff ecton i m por t ant r i ght s . ” 504 F. 2d 1, 4–5 ( 3d C i r . 1974) ( en banc)

. I n U

ni t ed St at es v. C ian

f r ani , w e appl i ed Schi avo to p e rm it co llate ra l o rd e r ju risd ictio n o v e r th e m e d ia’ s c h a llen g e to or der s excl udi ng t he publ i c and t he pr es s fr om a pr etr i al hear i ng and s eal i ng t he r ecor d. 573 F. 2d 835, 845 ( 3d C i r . 1978) ( ci t i ng Schi avo , 504 F. 2d at4)

. T he G overnm enth as ch al l enged our exer ci s e of j ur i s di ct ion, r el y i ng i n l ar ge parton F l anagan , in w hi ch t h e Su p r e me Cou r t h e l d t h a t we mus t i n t e rp r e tt he requi rem ents of the coll at eral order doctr i ne “ w i t h the ut m ost stri ct ness in cri m i nal cases” becau se of “the com pell i ng i nter est in p ro m p t trials” a n d th e d e la ys th a t an a p p e a l is lik e lyto c re a te
. 4 6 5 U .S . a t 2 6 5

. F l anagan i ns t ruct s us t o defe rappea l

11 unt i l fi nal j udgm ent i n a cr i m i nal cas e unl es s t he mat t eri nvol ves
“ a n a ss e rte d rig h t th e leg a l a n d p ra c tica l v a lu e o f w h ich w o u ld be des t r oy ed i f i tw er e notvi ndi cat ed bef or e tr i al

. ” I

d. at 266 ( c i t a t i o n s a n d i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n ma r k s omi t t e d )

. Att h e t i me F l anagan w as deci ded, t he Supr eme C our thad found onl yt hr ee t ypes of pr etr i al or der s t o m eett he r equi r ement s of the col l at er al or derdoctr i ne: ( 1) an or der deny i ng a m ot i on t o r educe bai l ; ( 2)I n A B C, Inc. v. Stew art , 360 F. 3d 90 ( 2d C i r . 2004) , t he 12 S e c o n d C irc u it h e ld th a t an o rd e r a f f e c tin g th e rig h t o f

a c c e ss in a cr i m i nal cas e w as appea l abl e und er t he col l at er al or der d o ctri n e . I

d. at97. W i t houtm ent i oni ng F l anagan , the c o u rt d ee m ed the ord er ap p ea lable fo r tw o rea so n s. F ir st, th e c o u rt sa id th a t th e d istri c t c o u rt h a d “ in e f f e c t allo w e d th e M e d ia C oal i t i on t o i nt ervene i n t he pendi ng cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng fort he l i m i t ed purpos e of chal l engi ng” the or der , and thatt he or derw as th e re f o re f in a l a n d a p p e a la b le a s to th e in te rv e n o rs . I d. ( ci t i ng I n r e H er ald C o. , 734 F. 2d 93, 96 ( 2d C i r . 1984) )

. Second, t he cour ts ai d t hatbeca u s e th e M edi a C oal i t i on’ s cl ai m s “coul d have been tr eat ed by t he di s t r i ct cour t as a new ci vi l cas e, as oppos ed to an i n terve n ti o n in th e pe n d ing crim inal ca se, an d th e o rd ers w oul d have be en f

inal i n t hatcas e[, ] [n] o j ur i s di ct i onal sign ifi ca n ce sh o u ld attach sim p lyb ec au se th e d istri ct co u rt 16 a n o rd e r d e n y in g a m o tio n to d ism iss a n in d ictm e n t o n d o u b le j eop ardygroun ds; and (3) an o rderden y i ng a m oti on t o d i sm i ss a n in d ic tm e n t o n s p e e c h o r d e b a te g ro u n d s . I d. at 26 5

– 6 6

. In Sel lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 539 U

. S. 166, 176–77 ( 2003) , t he C o u rt r ecogni zed thatan orde r t o for ci bl ym edi cat e a de fenda ntdur i ng t r i al al s o m eet s t he re qui r ement s forcol l at er al or derj ur i s di ct i on. W h a t th e se o rd e rs h a v e in c o m m o n is th a t n e ith e r a n a c q u itt a l, a pos t
- t r i al r ever s al o f a co nvi ct i on, noranyot herr es ul tcan a d e q u a te ly re d re s s th e h a rm th a t th e s e o rd e rs c a u s e . See F l anagan , 465 U

. S. at266–67. T he Supr eme C our thas not a d d res sed, po st- F l anagan , w hethera r i ghtof ac ces s cl ai m r ai s ed bya medi a out l eti n a cr i m i nal cas e w oul d s at i s fy t he col l at er al o rd e r d o c trin e . T h e iss u e b e f o re u s , the re f

o re , is n o t o n ly 12cho s e t o t r e a ta p p e l l a n t s a s i n t e r v e n o r s i n t h e c r i mi nal pr ocee di ng. ” I

d. ( ci t i ng I

n r e N ew Y ork Ti m es C o. , 828 F. 2d 1 1 0 , 1 1 3 (2 d C ir . 1 9 8 7 ))

. 17 w hethert he i ns t antor derw o u ld be appe al abl e undert he pr i nci pl es of Schi avo and C i anf r ani , b u t al so w h ethe r F l anagan has effec t i velyov erruled these cases.
B eca us e F l anagan h as i ts g rea test im p ac t o n th e thir d r equi r ement of the col l at eral or derdoctr i ne ( i

. e. , t hatt he d e c i s i o n mu s tb e “ e f

f e c t i v e l yu n r e v i e wa b l e o n a p p e a l f r o m a f i n a l j u d g m e n t ” ) , w e a d d r e s s t h i s r e q u i r e m e n tf i r s t
. We concl ude thati tw oul d be i m p o s s i bl e forus t o vi ndi cat e the p u b lic’s a ss e rte d rig h t o f a c c e ss if w e f o re c lo se d a p p e a l o f

th is m att er u n ti l after the f in a l ju d g m en t. A s w ith the o rde rs di s cus s ed i n F l anagan and S e ll , t he pot ent i al har m caus ed byan i m pr operor derr es t r i ct i ng t he publ i c’ s r i ghtof a cc ess t o a cr i m i nal t r i al i s notadequa t el yr edr es s abl e on appeal aft erfi nal j udgm ent , r egar dl es s of t he t r i al ’ s out come. W e have obs erved i n s i m i l arcas es t hat“cont em por aneous r evi ew [of j udi ci al p ro c e e d in g s] b yth e p u b lic ‘is a n e f f e c tiv e re stra in t o n p o ss ib le abus e of j udi ci al pow er . ’ ” U n ited S ta tes v . Sm ith , 787 F. 2d 111, 113 ( 3d C i r . 1986) ( quot i ng R i chm ond N ew s papers , I

nc. v. V irg in ia , 4 4 8 U .S . 5 5 5 , 5 9 6 (1 9 8 0 ) (B re n n a n , J., c o n c u rrin g in th e ju d g m e n t) ) ; see al so R epubl i c of

P hi l i ppi nes v. W es t i nghous e El ec. C or

p. , 9 4 9 F

. 2 d 6 5 3 , 6 6 0 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 1 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. C r i den , 6 4 8 F

. 2 d 8 1 4 , 8 2 1 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 1 ). K now l edge of j ur or s ’ i dent i t i es ai ds publ i c r evi ew byenabl i ng18 t he publ i c t o “ver i fyt he i m par t ial ityof keypar t i ci pant s i n t he admi ni s t r at i on of j us t i ce. ” I n r e G l obe N

ew s pa p er C o. , 920 F

. 2 d 8 8 , 9 4 (1st C ir

. 1 9 9 0 ).
T he G overnm ent ar gues t hat w e can ful l yvi ndi cat e any su c h r ig h t v ia p o st-tria l re lea se o f in f o rm a tio n , allo w in g u s to defe rr evi ew unt i l t he fi nal j udgm ent
. A lt h o u g h pos t
- t r i al r el eas e of i nfor m at i on m ay be bet t er t han none at al l , t he val ue o f th e rig h t o f

a c c e ss w o u ld b e se rio u slyu n d e rm in e d if it co u ld n o t b e c o n te m p o ra n e o u s . See, e. g. , G r ove Fre s h D ist ri bs

. v. E ver f r es h Jui ce Co. , 24 F. 3d 893, 897 ( 7t h C i r . 1994) ( “To del ay orpos tpone di s cl os ur e underm i nes t he benefi t of publ i c s crut i ny a n d m a yh a v e t h e s a m e r e s u l ta s c o m p l e t e s u p p r e s s i o n . ” )

. We do not s ugges t , of cour s e, t hat publ i c di s cl os ur e of i nfor m at i on r el a t e d t o j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs m us t al w ay s be cont empora neous , gi ven the int er es t s i n s ecur i t yand the other gr ave c oncerns t hatm i ghtout w eigh the r i ghtof ac ces s i n a par t i cul ar ca se. I ndeed, “s t r ongerr eas ons t o w i t hhol d j ur or n a m e s a n d a d d re ss e s w ill o f ten e x ist dur i ngt r i al t han af t era ver di cti s r ender ed. ” G l ob e N ew spap ers , 920 F. 2d at91 ( emphasi s i n o ri g i nal )

. B utt he val ue of c ont empora neous di s cl os ur e, as oppos ed t o pos t
- t r i al di s cl os ur e, i s s i gni fi cant enough t o j us t i fyour i m m edi at e r evi ew of t he mat t erundert he col l at er al or der doctr i ne. A ccor di ngl y , w e decl i ne t o hol d t hat F l anagan under m i nes ourconcl us i on i n Schi avo and C i anf r ani th a t r ig h t o f

a c c e s s c la im s a re im m e d ia te ly ap p e a la b le

. W e tur n now t o t he otherr equi r ement s forappl i cat i on ofT he D ec. 21 O r derdoes notexpl i ci t l yaddr es s w hether 13 the v en ir ep erso n s w il l be p rese n t w h en co u n sel rev iew s the jury q u e stio n n a ire in o p e n c o u rt. T he di s s entar gues t hat t he D ece m ber 21 or der w as not 14 fi nal beca us e i f the M ed ia-Int ervenor s ort he def endanthad pet i t i oned form odi fi cat i on of t he D ece m ber 21 or der , “theym ay w e ll h a v e b e e n s u c c e s s f u l.” D is s e n t, i nfr a , at 9. G i ven the fa ct th a t th e D istric t C o u rt h a d a lre a d y c o n sid e re d a n d re jec ted th e ir ar gum ent s , w e fi nd i tunl i kel y t hat t hey coul d have a chi eved the d e s i r e d mo d i f

i c a t i o n b yma k i n g t h e s e a r g u me n t s a g a i n . Of c o u rs e, i tw a s th e o re tica llyp o ss ib le th a t th e D istric t C o u rt w o u ld have modi fi ed the D ece m ber21 or der , ei t heri n r esp o n se t o a p eti ti o n fo r m o d ifi ca ti o n o r su a sp o n te
. T hi s pos s i bi l i t y does not 19 t he col l at er al or derdoctr i ne. T h e firs tr equi r ementi s t hatt he o rd e r m u s t “ c o n c lu s iv e ly d e te rm in e th e d is p u te d q u e s tio n .” C oopers & Lybr and , 437 U

. S. at468. W e ca nnotrev i ew any deci s i on t hat i s “t ent at i ve, i nfor m al or i ncompl et e. ” C ohen , 337 U

. S

. at54 6. T he D i stri ct C ou rt ’s D ecem ber 21 , 20 07 order i s a co n clus ive d eterm ination that the n a m es o f p rosp ec ti v e juro rs w il l no t be av ail ab le to the M ed ia-Interve n o rs at an yti m e b ef o re o r af ter th e trial a n d th a t voirdir e w i l l be conduc t ed byw r i t t en q u e s t i o n n a i r e u n t i l t h e p o o l o f j u r o r s i s r e d u c e d t o f o r t y . We 13 r eac h t hi s concl us i on bas ed on the fa ctt hatt h e 64- page or der exp li ci t l ycon si ders and rej ect s the M edia- Int erveno rs ’ obj ect i ons t o t hi s pr ocedur e. T her e i s no r eas on t o bel i eve that an ysu b seq u en t dev elop m en ts w o u ld h av e led the D istri ct C o u rt to re c o n sid e r its c o n c lu sio n . T h e G o v e rn m e n t d o e s n o t d isp u te 14el i m i nat e fi nal i t y , how ever , beca us e t he fi r s t r equi r ementof the c o llate ra l o rd e r d o c trin e m a yb e sa tisf ied w h e n “ th e re is no b a sis t o s uppos e thatt he D i s t r i ct Ju d g e cont empl at ed any r econs i der at i on of hi s deci s i on. ” Mos es H

. C one Mem . H os p. v. Mer cur y C ons tr . C or

p. , 460 U

. S. 1, 12–13 ( 1983)

. B eca us e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s D ece m ber21 or deri ndi cat es t hat i t i s i nt ended t o be the fi nal w or d on t he M edi a- I nt ervenor s ’ obj ect i ons , i tw as f in a l f o r p u rp o s e s o f

th e c o lla te ra l o rd e r d o c tr in e . W e r e c o g n ize th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t’s f a ilu re to 15 c h a llen g e th e f

in a lityo f th e o rd e r is n o t d isp o sitiv e , sin c e it i s al w ay s ourdut yt o ens ur e thatw e ar e pr oper l yexer ci s i ng j uri sdi ct i on . T o the e x ten t th att he final i t yof the order i s a fac tual i s s ue, how ever , t he G ov ern m en tm aybe i n a bett er p o sit ion than w e a re to e v alua te w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rt w o u ld have c ons i der ed a r eques tform odi fi cat i on. T her efor e, i t s deci s i on nott o ch al l enge thi s r equi r ementof the col l at er al o rd e r d o c tr in e is n o ta b le

. 20 t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s o rde rconcl us i vel ydet erm i ned the ques t i on. See G overnm ent ’ s R es pons e at8–9 ( “the or der

15 regar ding j ury sel ect i on proced ures m ay sat i sfyth e fi rs t req u ir em en t of

the c o ll ateral o rde r do ctri n e , i. e. , co n c lu siv e ly d e t e r mi n i n g t h e d i s p u t e d q u e s t i o n . . . ” )

. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we con cl ud e t hat the D i stri c t C ou rt ’s order s at i sfi es the fir st re q u ir e m e n t o f

th e c o lla te ra l o rd e r d o c tr in e . T he s econd r equi r ementi s t hatt he or der “r es ol ve an i m por t ant i s s ue compl et el y s epar at e fr om t he m er i t s of theA t ti m e s, c o u rts h a v e tre a ted im p o rta n c e a s a f u lly 16 in d e p e n d e n t r e q u ir e m e n t o f th e c o lla te ra l o rd e r d o c tr in e . See, e. g. , Nixo n v . F itzg e ra ld , 457 U

. S

. 7 3 1 , 742 ( 1982) ( “A s an a d d itio n a l r e q u ir e m e n t, C ohen es t abl i s hed t h at a c ol l at er al appea l of an inter l ocut or yor derm us t‘ [pr es ent ] a s er i ous and uns et t l ed ques t i on. ’ ” ( quot i ng C ohen , 337 U

. S. at547) )

. T he exac tr ol e of t he i m por t ance r equi r ement i n t he ana l y s i s has been th e s u b je c t o f d e b a te
. S e e g e n e ra lly 1 5 A C h a rle s A lan W rig h t, e t a l. , Federal P ract i ce an d P rocedu re § 3 9 1 1

. 5 (2d ed

. 1 9 9 2 ).

21 act i on. ” Coo

p e rs & Lybr and , 4 3 7 U .S . at 4 6 8 . T h is is som et i m es d i vided i nto tw o sub -r equ i rem ents : (a) t he is sue m ust be i m por t ant ; and ( b) t he i s s ue mustbe compl et el ys epar at e fr om t he mer i t s of the ac t i on. T he Su p rem e C o u r thas defi ned an i m por t anti s s ue as one i nvo lving i nt er es t s t hatar e “w ei ght i er t han t he s oci et al i nt er es t s advanc ed byt he or di naryoper at i on of fi nal j udgm entpr i nci pl es , ” D igi t alE qui p. C or p. v. D es kt op D i r ect , 5 1 1 U

. S. 863, 879 ( 1994) , orone thati s “s er i ous and uns et t l ed, ” C ohen , 337 U

. S. at 5 4 7

. W e bel i eve thatt he 16 ques t i on of w hen a di s t r i ctcour tm ayw i t hhol d t he n am es of j ur or s and the cont entof voirdir e p ro c e e d in g s fr o m th e p u b lic du ri ng a cri m i na l tria l i s i m po rt ant enou gh t o sat i sfyt he fir st su b

- r equi r ement
. T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or deri m pl i cat es t he pu bli c’s rig h t o f access t o judi ci al proceed i ng s, w hich i s a const itu t i onal i nt er es tof s uffi ci entw ei ghtt o per m i tt he po ssi bil i t y of dep art i ng from ordi naryfi nal j ud gm ent pr i ncipl es. L i ke the or der s ati s s ue i n Schi avo a n d C ian fr ani , t he i ns t antI n a footnot e, t he G overnm ent“ques t i ons t he 17 i m por t ance of the M edia’s abi l i t yt o w r i t e art i cl es t hati ncl ude j ur or s ’ names as o p p os ed t o ar t i cl es w i t houtt hem. ” See Go v e r n me n t ’ s Re s p o n s e a t9 n . 6

. As we e x p l a i n b e l o w, how ever , t he r el eas e of j ur ornames c an be a n i m por t antpar tof th e p u b lic’s rig h t o f a c c e ss . In th e w o rd s o f th e F irst C irc u it i n I n re G l obe N

ew s paperC o. , “[k] now l edge of j ur ori dent i t i es a llo w s th e p u b lic to v e rif yth e im p a rtialityo f

k e yp a rticip a n ts in t he admi ni s t r at i on of j us t i ce, and ther ebyens ur es fai r nes s , t he a p p e a ra n c e o f

f a ir n e s s a n d p u b lic c o n f id e n c e in th a t s y s te m .” 9 2 0 F

. 2 d 8 8 , 9 4 (1st C ir

. 1 9 9 0 ). 22 o rd e r h a s “ a s u b s ta n tia l, co n ti n u in g e f f e c t o n im p o rt a n t r ig h ts .” 17 See C i anf

r ani , 5 7 3 F .2 d a t 8 4 5 ; Schi avo , 504 F. 2d at5. M or eover , as w e make cl eari n ours ubs t ant i ve di s cus s i on bel ow , t h e p r e c i s e q u e s t i o n i n t h i s c a s e i s u n s e t t l e d

. Th u s , t he s ub- r equi r ement t hat t he i s s ue mustbe “i m por t ant ” i s s at i s fi ed.
T he i s s ue i s al s o compl et el y s epar at e fr om t he mer i t s of th e a c tio n , i

. e. , W e c h t’s g u ilto r i n n o c e n c e . W e h a v e re p e a ted ly h eld th at ord ers restri cti n g p u b li c a cc ess to inf o rm ati o n are s e p a ra te f

ro m th e u n d e rl y in g is s u e s in c ri m in a l tr ia ls

. See, e. g. , C i anf r ani , 573 F. 2d at841 ( concl udi ng t hatt he medi a’ s appea l of an or der barr i ng t he publ i c fr om a pr etr i al su p p ress i on hear i ng and sea l i ng t he re cor d of t hat hear i ng w as s epar at e fr om the m erit s o f th e u n d erly ing crim inal p roc ee d ing ); Schi avo , 504 F .2 d a t 5 (c o n c lu d in g th a t a n o rd e r pu rp o rtin g to e n jo in new s paper s fr om publ i s hi ng i nfor m at i on “det erm i ned a mat t erT he G o v ernmentci t es s ever al cas es i n s uppor tof a 18 con t rarycon cl usi on . F i rs t , i tci t es S e llfort he pr opos i t i on t hat a n iss u e sa tis f

ie s th e “ c o m p lete lyse p a ra te” re q u ire m e n t o n ly

23 i ndepende ntof the i s s ues t o be r es ol ved in t he cr i m i nal p ro c e e d in g itse lf

” ). T h e G o v e rn m e n t o b

jec ts th a t th e a n o n ym ity o f th e ju ryis “ in tim a telytied to th e m e rits” b e c a u se “ th e ju ryis t he ent i t yt hatw i l l deci de the ul t i m at e i s s ues of gui l tor i nnocenc e i n t hi s cas e. ” G overnm ent ’ s R es pons e at 9. B utt he r el evantques t i on i s w hethert he i s s ues pr es ent ed i n t he M edi aI nt er ven o rs’ ri ghtof ac ces s cl ai m ar e t i ed t o W echt ’ s gui l tor in n o c e n c e , n o t w h e th e r th e a p p e a led iss u e a n d th e m e rits i nvol ve t he s ame “ent i t y . ” I n Sel l v. U ni t ed Stat es , t h e S u p r e me C our tfound thatt he i s s ue of w hethert he def endant mustbe for ci bl ym edi cat ed i n or der t o s t and t r i al w as s epar at e fr om t he m er i t s , even though the D i s t r i ctC our thad found thatt he m e d ica tio n se r v e d “ th e g o v e rn m e n t’s c o m p e lli n g in ter e st in o b ta in in g a n a d

ju d ic a tio n o f

d e f e n d a n t’ s g u ilt o r i n n o c e n c e .” 5 3 9 U .S . 1 6 6 , 1 7 4

– 7 6 (2 0 0 3 ); see al so 539 U

. S. at192 ( Scal i a, J

. , di s s ent i ng) ( agr eei ng t hat t he medi cat i on or derr es ol ved “a n i m por t anti s s ue s epar at e fr om t he mer i t s ” des pi t e conc l udi ng th a t th e o rd e r d id n o t s a tisf y th e th ird p ro n g ). S im ilarly , in th is ca se, the D istri ct Ju d g e m ayh av e b eli ev ed that estab li sh ing jury anonym i t yw o u ld ai d t he det erm i nat i on of gui l tori nnocenc e, but t he anonym i t yi s s ue i s nonethel es s s epar at e fr om anyi s s ue pr es ent ed byt he mer it s . T hus , w e bel i eve thatt he s ubr equi r ement t hatt he i s s ue be “ compl et el ys epar ate fr om t he m er i t s of the ac t i on” i s s at i s fi ed i n t hi s cas e. 18w h e n it is s e p a ra te “ f ro m q u esti o n s co n ce rnin g tr ia l p ro c e d u re s .” 5 3 9 U

. S

. at 17 6

. S e lldoes notdefi ne a “ t r i al pr ocedur e” or expl ai n w hethert hi s m eans s om ethi ng di ffe r entfrom bei ng s epar at e fr om t he mer i ts. I n anycas e, w e have di s cus s ed S e ll ab o v e a n d co n clud ed that itsu p p o rt s th e c o n clus ion that jury anonym i t yi s compl et el ys epar at e fr om W echt ’s gui l tor i nn ocen ce. S econ d, t he G ov ernm ent ci t es U ni t ed S t at es v. McVeigh , 106 F. 3d 325, 332 ( 10t h C i r . 1997) , w hi ch hel d t hat an or derbarr i ng vi ct i m - i m pactw it n esses fr om obs ervi ng t he gui l tphas e of a capi t al t r i al w as not s epar at e fr om t he mer i t s of t he ac t i on. W e dec l i ne t o r el yon McVeigh , h o w e v e r, b e c a u se it i nt erpr et s t he C ri m i nal A ppeal s A ct , 18 U

. S. C

. § 3731, r ather th a n th e c o llate ra l o rd e r d o c trin e . 1 0 6 F .3 d a t 3 2 9 ; se e a lso id

. at331 ( “.

. . w hen the gov ern m en t seeks r evi ew i n a cr i m i nal c a s e , c o n c e r n s u n a d d r e s s e d b y C ohen come i nt o pl ay . ”)

. T hi r d, t h e Go v e r n me n tc i t e s d i c t a f r o m U ni t ed State s v. G r een , 407 F

. 3 d 4 3 4 , 4 3 8 (1st C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ), w h ich a d d resse s the g o v ern m en t’ s a ttem p t to a p p e a l f

ro m a p re trial o rd e r e sta b lish in g tw o se p a ra te j ur i es for gui l t and sent enci ng. L i ke McVeigh , G r een i nvol ves a governm entappea l i n a cr i m i nal cas e, and thus w oul d notbe contr ol l i ng even i f i t w er e a hol di ng fr om ourow n ci r cui tr ather th a n d ic ta f

ro m a n o th e r. 24 T h e G o v e rn m e n t p re se n ts tw o a d d iti o n a l ch a llen g e s to ourabi l i t yt o heart hi s appea l

. Fi r s t , t he G overnm entar gues t hat t he m edi a l acks s t andi ng beca us e i t“does nothave a publ i c r i ght of ac ces s undert he Fi r s tA m endmentor t he com m on l aw t o t he j ur or s ’ names a nd/ ort he j ur or s ’ ques t i onnai res” and thus s uffe r ed no “i nj ur yi n fac t
. ” G overnm ent ’ s R es pons e at11–12.C ont r ary t o t he G overnm ent ’ s s ugges t i on, t he M edi a- 19 I n t e r v e n o r s a r e n o ts e e k i n g a c c e s s t o t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , s o we need notcons i der w hether t heyhave a “r i ght ” t o acc es s t hem for s t andi ng purpos es . Pur s uantt o P r es s - E nt er pr is e I, t he M edi aI nt e r v e n o r s h a v e a tl e a s ta p r e s u mpt i v e r i g h to f a c c e s s t o v o ir dir e pr ocee di ngs , s o w e concl ude t hat t heyhave s t andi ng t o t he ex tent t hatt heycl ai m t hatt heychal l enge the D i s t r i ctC our t’ s voirdir e ru lin g s o n ri g h t o f a c c e s s g ro u n d s . T he D i stri ct C ou rt st at es l at er i n i t s order t hat “in 20 acc or dance w i t h M i s c. R ul e 06- 211, t he C our t( and no couns el orpar t y ) w i l l nei t herr ead nors t at e the na m es or a ddr es s es of p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro rs in o p e n c o u rt, n o r w ill th e y p ro v id e th e m e d ia oranyper s on o r p ar t yacc es s t o t he names oraddr es s es of the p ro sp e c tiv e o r e m p a n e led ju ro rs.” D e c . 2 1 O rd e r at 3 7 . D e sp ite th is, it ap p e a rs th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t re ly on M i s c. 06- 21 1 ev en if i tm i gh thav e act ed “in accordan ce w i t h” it

. T hu s, w e w i l l notcons i dert he cons t i tut i onal i t y of M i s c. 06- 211 i n our e v a lu a tio n o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r.

25 B e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e M e d ia- In ter v e n o rs h a v e a rig h t to th e ju ro rs’ n a m e s, f

o r th e re a so n s d isc u ss e d b e lo w , w e re jec t th is ar gum entand conc l ude thatthe M edi a- I nt ervenor s have s t andi ng. T h e M edi a- I nt ervenor s do nothave s t andi ng,

19 h o w ev er, to cha ll en g e d ir ec tl ythe c o n sti tuti o n ali tyo f th e B o ard o f Ju d g e s’ o rd e r (M isc

. 0 6 -2 1 1 ), b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt d id not r el y on t hi s as a basi s fori t s deci s i on. See D ec. 21 O r der 20 at18 n. 4. Se co n d , the G overnm entar gues t hatas a prudent i al m at t er , w e s houl d di s m i s s t he M edi a- I nt ervenor s ’ appea l asT he M edi a- I nt ervenor s al s o s t at e thatt he comm on l aw 21 ort he Thi r d C i r cui t ’ s s uper vi s orypow er s es t abl i s h a r i ghtof 26 unt i m el y beca us e t hey di d not appea l unt i l D ece m ber2007, s ho rt ly b efor e tr i al w as s chedul ed t o begi n i n J anuary2008. G overnm ent ’ s R es pons e at12–13. T he G overnm ent as s er t s t hat t he D i s t r i ctC ourthad made i t s i nt ent i on t o es t abl i s h an an o n ym o u s jury clea r i n Ju ly2 0 0 6 , o n e-a n d -a-h alf y ea rs be fo re the M ed ia-Interve n o rs ap p ea led. T h e M ed ia-Interve n o rs r es pond t hat t he J ul y 2006 or der di d notcl ear l yes t abl i s h t hatt he j ur yw oul d be anonym ous , and i n anyeventw as nota fi nal or der s i nc e i te x p l i c i t l yi n d i c a t e d t h a ti twas s u b j e c tt o mod i f

i c a t i on. M edi a’ s E m er gencyM ot i on at6–7. B eca us e the medi a ac t s as a s u r r o g a te f

o r t h e p u b lic in a s s e rt in g a ri g h t o f a c c e s s , s ee R ich m o n d

N e w sp a p e rs v . V

irg in ia , 4 4 8 U

. S

. 5 5 5 , 5 7 2 (19 8 0 ), w e decl i ne t o r ej ectt he appe al even a s s um i ng ar guendo t hatt he M e d ia -I n te rv e n o rs w e re n o t d ilig e n t in a s s e rt in g th is ri g h t.
I V.
T he M edia- Int ervenor s s e e k r e ve rs al of the order because i tr equi r es t hat t he pr os pect i ve and tr i al j ur or s be anonym ous and beca us e i tcr eat es a voirdir e pr oces s t hat r el i es s ol el yon w r i t t en ques t ionna i r es w i t houtj ur or s bei ng phy s i cal l ypr es enti n t he c o u r t r o o m p ri o r t o re d u c tio n o f th e v e n ir e to a p o o l o f f o r t y. B ecause theyrel ypri m ari l yon argum ents t hat the F i rs t A m endment cr eat es a r i ght of acc es s t hatr equi r es di s cl os ur e of j ur or s ’ names and t he conduc t i ng of voirdir e i n o p e n c o u r t , we 21acc es s t o cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs t hati ncl udes di s cl os ur e o f t he j ur or s ’ names a nd voi r di r e i n open court
. M edi a’ s E m er gency M ot i on at10–11 ( ci t i ng I n R e The B al t i m or e Sun C o. , 841 F. 2d 7 4 (4 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ) (c o m m o n law ); U ni t ed Stat es v. C r i den , 675 F .2 d 5 5 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 2 ) (s u p e rv iso ryp o w e rs) ). T h e yd o n o t, how ever , m ake a s er i ous eff or tt o devel op t hes e al t ernat i ve groun ds for a ri gh t of ac cess as i de from t heirci t at i on s t o these cas es . T hus , w e w i l l focus onl y on t hei rar gum entt hata r i ghtof a c c e s s e x is ts u n d e r t h e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t. A l t hough no opi ni on i n R i chm on d N ew spap ers 22 comm anded a m aj or i t y , s ev en o f the ei ghtj us t i ces w ho par t i ci pat ed i n the ca s e r ecogni zed thatthe Fi r s tA m endment e m b o d ie s a ri g h t to a tte n d c r i m i n a l tr ia ls

. See 448 U

. S. at 5 5 8

– 8 1 (p lu ra lityo p in io n ); i d. a t 5 8 4

– 9 8 (B re n n a n , J ., c o n c u rrin g in ju d g m e n t); i d. at 598–601 ( St ew ar t , J

. , concurr i ng i n judgm ent) ; i d. a t 6 0 1

– 0 4 (B lac k m u n , J., c o n c u rrin g in jud g m en t)

. 27 b r i e f l y r e v i e w th e r i g h to f

a c c e s s j u r i s p ru d e n c e o f t h e S u p r e me C o u rt a n d o u r c o u rt
. I n R ich m o n d N

e w sp a p e rs , In c . v. V

irg in ia , 448 U

. S. 555 ( 1980) , t he Supr eme C our t hel d t hat“the r i ght t o at t end 22 cri m i nal tri al s is im pli ci ti n the gua rant ees of the Fir st A m end m en t” b e c a u se “ w ith o u t th e f re e d o m to a tten d su c h trials , w hi ch peopl e have exer ci s ed for centur i es , i m por t antas pect s of fr eedom of spe ech a nd ‘ of the pr es s coul d be evi s cer at ed. ’ ” 448 U

. S. at580 ( quot i ng B r anz bur g v. H ayes , 4 0 8 U. S. 6 6 5 , 68128 ( 1972) )

. T he C our ts ai d t hatt hi s r i ghten co m p as s ed both a “r i ghtof ac ces s ” and a “r i ghtt o gatheri nfor m at i on, ” and that t he medi a’ s ri g h t is no l es s i m por t antt han thatof the gene r al p u b lic

. I

d. at576–77 & n . 1 2

. I n P r es s - E nt er pr is e C o. v. Su peri or C ou rt , 4 6 4 U

. S

. 5 0 1 (19 8 4 ) (“ P r es s - E nt er pr is e I ”) , t he Supr eme C our th eld tha tt hi s r i ghtof ac ces s and t o gather i nfor m at i on appl i es t o v oi rdi re in crimi nal t r i al s as w el l

. 464 U

. S. at 508. T he C our texpl ai ned that“[t ] he pr es um pt i on of opennes s m aybe over come onl y by an over r i di ng i nt er es tbas ed on fi ndi ngs t hatcl os ur e i s es s ent i al t o pr es erve h i gherval ues and is narr ow l yt ai l or ed t o s erve thati nt er es t ” and that“[t ] he i nt er es ti s t o be art i cul at ed al ong w i t h fi ndi ngs s peci fi c enough t hata r evi ew i ng cour tcan de t erm i ne w hethert he cl os ur e or der w a s p ro p e rl ye n te re d .” 4 6 4 U .S . a t 5 1 0

. T o det erm i ne w hatas pect s of a c r i m i nal t r i al ar e s ubj ect t o a p res um pti ve ri gh t o f pu bli c access und er the F i rs t A m end m ent, t he C ou rtcreat ed the “exp eri ence a nd l og i c” t est i n P ress -En t erprise C o. v. Su peri or C ou rt , 4 7 8 U

. S. 1, 8–9 (19 8 6 ) (“ P ress -E n terp rise II ” ). T h is te st re q u ir e s c o u rts to w ei gh t w o “compl ement arycons i der at i ons . ” I d. at8. U ndert he “expe r i ence ” pr ong, a courtcons i der s “w hethert he pl ac e and pr oces s have hist or i cal l ybeen ope n t o t he pr es s and gene r al publ i c. ” I

d. U n d er the “log ic” p ro n g , a c o u rtco n side rs “w hetherpubl i c a cc ess pl ay s a s i gni fi cantpos i t i ve r ol e i n t he f u n c tio n in g o f th e p a rt ic u la r p ro c e s s in q u e s tio n ” b y , in tera lia , enhanc i ng “bot h t he bas i c fa i r nes s of the cr i m i nal t r i al and the appea r ance of fai r nes s s o es s ent i al t o publ i c confi dence i n theW e po i nt outt hat the F i rs tA m end m ent r i gh tof ac cess 23 that the M ed ia-Interve n o rs a ssert is d ist inct fro m a d ef en d an t’ s Si xt h A m endment r i ghtto ch al l enge the us e of a n anonym ous ju ry. 29 s y s t em. ” I

d. at 8–9 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. I f an a s pectof a c r i m i nal t ri al “passes these t est s of ex peri ence a nd l og i c, a qu al i fi ed F i rs t Am e n d me n tr i g h to f

p u b l i c a c c e s s a t t a c hes

. ” I d. a t9

– 1 0

. As P r es s E nt er

pr is e I m ade clear , even w hen such a ri gh tof ac cess exi s t s , i t i s m er el y pr es um pt i ve and m ay be over come i f t he D i s t r i ctC our tar t i cul at es s peci fi c fa ct s t hatj us t i fycl os ur e. W hethert here i s a F i rs t A m end m ent r i gh tt o h ave ac cess t o a part i cul aras pectof a j udi ci al pr oceedi ng i s a ques t i on of l a w t h a twe r e v i e w de novo

. See U ni t ed St at es v. A nt ar , 38 F. 3d 1348, 1356–57 ( 3d C i r . 1994)

. O ut s i de of t he Fi r s tA m endment c o n t e x t , we u s e a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n s t a n d a r d t o r e v i e w a D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n s re g a rd in g ju ry a n o n ym ity, U ni t ed S ta tes v . Sc a rfo , 8 5 0 F .2 d 1 0 1 5 , 1 0 2 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 8 ), an d its conductof v oi rdir e , B u tl erv. C i t y of C am den , 352 F. 3d 811, 815 ( 3d C i r . 2003)

. T o t he ext entt hatw e cons i derw hethert he 23 D i s t r i ctC our thas ar t i cul at ed fi ndi ngs s uffi ci entt o over come a p re su m p tiv e rig h t o f

a c c e ss u n d e r th e F irst A m e n d m e n t, how ever , w e conduc t“s ubs t ant i al l ybr oader ” r evi ew t hat “i ncl udes i ndepende nt cons i der at i on of t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or der a n d th e f a c tu a l f in d i n g s in f

e rr e d f ro m th e e v id e n c e b e f

o re it.” I n r e C api t alC i t i es/

A B C, I nc. , 913 F. 2d 89, 92 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( ci t i ng B os e C or

p. v. C ons um ers U

ni on , 466 U

. S. 485, 499S o m e h a v e a rg u e d th a t th e S u p re m e C o u rt se ttl e d th is 24 ques t i on i n P r es s - E nt er pr is e I byi m pl y ing thatj ur or s ’ names ar e an i ns eparabl e componentof voirdir e . D i s cus s i ng a pot ent i al confl i ctbetw een the Fi r s tA m endmentpr es um pt i on of o p en n ess f

o r v oi rdi re , an d juro rs’ priva cyinterests, the C o u rt s ai d: W hen l i m i t ed cl os ur e [of voir d ire ] i s or der ed, t he cons ti tut i onal val ues s oughtt o be pr ot ect ed byhol di ng open pr ocee di ngs m aybe sat i s fi ed l at erbym aki ng a t r ans cr i ptof the cl os ed pr ocee di ngs avai lable w i t hi n a rea so n ab le tim e, i f th e jud g e d eterm ines that d iscl o su re c a n b e a c c o m p lish e d w h ile s a f e g u a rd in g th e ju ro r’s v a lid pr i vacyi nt er es t s . E ven then a va l i d pri v ac y r i ghtm ay r i s e t o a l evel t hatpar tof the tr ans cr i pts houl d be s eal ed, or the n am e of a j uror w i thh e ld , t o pr ot ectt he per s on f ro m e m b a rr a s s m e n t.

30 (1 9 8 4 ); N

ew Y or k Ti m es C o. v. Sul l i van , 376 U

. S. 254 , 285 (1 9 6 4 )); see al

so A nt ar , 3 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 7 ; U n itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 7 8 7 F .2 d 1 1 1 , 1 1 3 n .1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 6 ).
V.
T he M edi a- I nt er venor s ar gue that t he F i r s tA m endment r equi r es di s cl os ur e of t he j ur or s ’ names pr i ort o empanel m entof th e ju ryin th is c a se . T h is q u e stio n is o n e o f f irst im p re ss io n in ourci r cui t
. Fol l ow i ng t he fr amew or k es t abl i s hed i n P ress 24464 U

. S. at 512 ( emphasi s added)

. A r guabl y , t hi s pas s age c an be “r ead t o i m pl yt hat j ur or s ’ i dent i t i es ar e partand par cel of voi rdi r e, and as such a r e governed byt he s ame pr i nci pl es of pr es um pt i ve ac ces s . ” B eacon Jour nalv. B ond , 781 N

. E

. 2d 180, 1 9 2 (O h io 2 0 0 2 ) (qu o tin g D a v id W e in s te in , P ro tecti n ga Ju ro r’s R ightt o P r i vacy : C ons t i t ut i onalC ons tr ai nt s and P ol i cy O pt i ons , 70 T EMP L E L. R EV . 1 , 3 0 (1 9 9 7 ))

. See a lso G a n n e tt C o. , Inc. v. Stat e of D el aw are , 571 A

. 2d 735, 755 ( D el

. 1990) ( Wa l s h , J

. , d i s s e n t i n g )

. Al t h o u g h t h i s a r g u me n ti s p l a u s i b l e , we w ill n o t c o n c lu d e f

ro m a sin g le p a ss a g e o f

S u p re m e C o u rt d icta t hatt he ques t i on i s deci sive ly set t l ed. R ather , w e tr eatt he ques t i on as uns et t l ed and pr ocee d w i t h t he “e xper i ence and l o g i c ” a n a l ys i s r e q u i r e d b y P ress -E n terp rise II

. 31 E n terp rise II, w e w i l l exami ne fi r s tw hethert he “e xper i ence and l o g i c ” t e s t s u p p o r t s a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e p r e s u mpt i v e r i g h t of a c c e ss to c rim in a l p ro c e e d in g s in c lu d e s a rig h t o f a c c e ss to ju ro rs ’ n a m e s . S ee P ress -E n terp rise II, 478 U

. S. at7–10. I f s o, w e w ill e x a m in e w h e th e r th is p re su m p tio n o f o p e n n e ss is over come by par t i cul ar i zed fi ndi ngs i n t he r ecor d “es t abl i s hi ng t he exi s t ence of a c om pel l i ng governm enti nt eres t , ” and “demonstr at i ng t hatab sen tl i m i t ed r es t r i ct i ons on t he r i ghtof a c c e s s , th a t o th e r i n te re s t w o u ld b e s u b s ta n tia lly im p a ir e d .” A nt ar , 38 F. 3d at1359 ( ci t i ng P ress -E n terp rise II, 4 7 8 U

. S. at 1 5 ).
A.
T he fi r s tques ti on befor e us i s w hethert he “e xper i ence32 and l og ic” testest abli shes the ex i st ence o f a presum pti ve F i rs t A m endment r i ght of acc es s t o obt ai n t he names o f b o th tr i al j u r o r s a n d p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s p r i o r t o e m p a n e l m e n to f t h e j u r y. W e c o n c lu d e th a t it d o e s . 1. E xper i ence I n P r es s - E nt er

pr ise I, t he Supr eme C our tt r ace d t he d ev elop m en t o f the jury selec ti o n p roc ess fro m the d ay s “b ef o re t he N or m an C onques t , ” and c oncl uded that“s inc e the d ev e lop m en t of

tr ial b yjury , the p roc ess o f se lecti o n o f ju rors h a s p re su m p tiv e lyb e e n a p u b li c p ro c e ss w ith e x c e p tio n s o n ly f o r g o o d c a u se sh o w n .” 4 6 4 U .S . 5 0 5

– 0 8 . A lth o u g h th is h isto ric a l ev id e n c e h e lp s to sh o w th a t v o ir dir e is tra d iti o n a lly a pu bli c process, i t do es n ot nec essar i l y est abli sh t hat t he jur ors’ n am es w e re a lso k n o w n to the p u b li c. T h e M ed ia-Interve n o rs p o in t o u t th a t “ th e re is n o s u g g e s tio n in

. . . P r es s - E nt er pr is e I th a t th e n a m e s o f

th e ju ro rs w e re n o t e q u a lly o p e n to th e p u b lic as t he ot her par t s of the voirdir e pr oces s . ” M edi a’ s E m er gency M ot i on at11–12. T hi s i s t rue, butt he o p inion c ont ai ns no s ugges t i on t o t he contr ary , and w e ar e r el uct antto d raw concl us i ons s ol el ybas ed on the C our t ’ s s i l ence abouta ques t i on th a t w a s n o t b e f

o re it.
B eca us e j ur i es have hi s t or i cal l ybeen s el ect ed fr om l ocal p o p u lat ion s in w h ich m o s t p eo p le ha v e k n o w n ea ch o ther, how ever , t he tr adi t i onal publ i c natu re of voirdir e stro n g ly s ugges t s t h a t j u r o r s ’ i d e n t i t i e s wer e p u b l i c a s wel l

. Ca s e l awT he F ou rth C i rcui t ’s B al t i m or e Sun o p in io n u lti m a tely 25 re sts o n th e c o m m o n law r a th e r th a n o n th e F irst A m e n d m e n t. 841 F. 2d at 76 n. 4. N onethel es s , i t s hi s t or i cal evi dence i s us eful f o r o u r a n a lysis o f

th e “ e x p e ri e n c e ” p ro n g .

33 an d lega l co m m en tary co n firm this su g g e s tio n . S e e I n Re B al t i m or e Sun C o. , 841 F. 2d 74, 75 ( 4t h C i r . 1998) ( “W hen the j ur ys y s t em gre w up w i t h j ur i es of the vi ci nage, everybodyknew everybodyon t he j ur y. . . , ” s o r equi r i ng t he publ i c di s cl os ur e of th e n a m e s o f

tr ia l an d p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro rs u p o n e m p a n e lm e n t is “no more t han an a ppl i cat ion of w hathas al w ay s been the l aw . . . .” ) ; D a v id W e in s te in , P ro tec tin gA J u r o r’s R ig h t to 25 P r i vacy: C ons t i t ut i onalC ons tr ai nt s and P ol i cy O

pt i ons , 70 T EMP
. L. R EV
. 1, 30 ( 1997) ( “Th e n ames of j ur or s have be en avai l abl e t o t he publ i c thr oughoutt he hi s t or y o f the com m on law

. . . . M o re o v e r, th e re c o rd s o f e a rlyju rytrials e v in c e little c o n c e r n f

o rp r o t e c t i n g j u r o ra n o n ym i t y. ” ) ; R o b e r tL l o yd R a s k o p f , A F irs t A m en dm en t R igh t of A cc ess to a Ju ro r’s Ide n ti ty: T

o w a rda Fu ll er U

n d ersta n d ingo

f th e J u ry’s D el i berati ve P rocess , 17 P EPP
. L. R EV
. 3 5 7 , 3 7 0 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ( “ An exam i nati on of h i st ori cal t radi t i on i nd i cat es that j urors ’ i d e n t i t i e s a n d p l a c e s o f

r e s i d e n c e t r a d i t i o n a l l yh a v e b e e n k n o wn to th e p u b lic.” ). W e f

in d it sig n if

ica n t th a t in sta n c e s o f

c o u rts w i t hhol di ng j ur ors’ n am es appea rt o be veryr ar e bef or e the 1 9 7 0 s . See, e. g. , E p h ra im M a rg o lin & G e r a l d F . U e lm e n , The A nonym ous Jur

y: Jur y T am per i ng B y Anot herN

am e? , 9 C R IM J UST
. 14, 14 ( 1994) ( “J ur oranonym i t yi s an i nnovat i on t hatw as u n k n o w n to th e c o m m o n law a n d to A m e ric a n ju risp ru d e n c e inFor exampl e, i n H am erv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 259 F. 2d 274 26 ( 9t h C i r . 1958) , the N inth C i r cui tuphel d a 1951 or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe Sout hern D is t r i ctof C al i forni a t hat pr ohi bi t ed r evel at i on of t he names and addr es s es of j ur or s and pr osp ect i ve j ur or s t o any one, i ncl udi ng t he d e f e n d a n t, p ri o r t o tr ia l. I

d. a t 2 7 7

– 8 0

. W e agr ee w i t h t he obs ervat i on of t he di s s ent i ng j udge 27 i n G annet tC o. , 571 A

. 2d at757–58, t hateven i f a f ew cas es exi s ti n w hi ch court s kept j ur or s ’ names pri vat e, t hi s w oul d not byi t s el f pr ove thatno t r adi t i on of openne s s exi s t s . I n t hat j ud ge’s w ords: O n e c a n n o t c o n clud e w ith ce rt aintythat in the en ti re hi s t or yof A ngl o- A m er i can j ur i s prudence an anonym ous j uryw as neve ri m panel l ed [ sic ] pr i ort o t he 1970s. Y et 34 i t s fi r s tt w o centur i es . ”)

. N ei t hert he D i s t ri ctC our tnort he G overnm entci t e anysu ch cas es i n t hei rdi s cus s i on of the

“ e x p e r ie n c e ” p ro n g . See D ec . 2 1 O rde r at 26 ; G o v ern m en t’ s R e sp o n se a t 1 6

– 1 8 . M o re o v e r, n o n e o f th e f e d e ra l an d sta te opi ni ons t hatanal y ze the “e xper i ence ” pr ong have ci t ed anypr e1 9 7 0 s c a s e s i n whi c h j u r o r s ’ n a me s we r e n o tp u b l i c l yk n o wn p ri o r t o e m p a n e lm e n t. See, e. g. , Uni t e d S t a t e s v . B l ack , 483 F . S u p p . 2 d 6 1 8 , 6 2 3

– 2 6 (N .D . Ill . 2 0 0 7 ); C om m onw eal th v. Long , 9 2 2 A .2 d 8 9 2 , 9 0 1

– 0 3 (P a . 2 0 0 7 ); B eaco n Jo ur nalv. B ond , 7 8 1 N .E .2 d 1 8 0 , 1 9 3 (O h io 2 0 0 2 ); G annet tC o. , Inc. v. Stat e of D el aw are , 571 A

. 2 d 735, 743–48 ( D el

. 1990)

. Such ca ses ex ist , b u t the y are rare. B ase d o n the ev iden ce b ef o re 26 27th e m a jo ritya p p e a rs to d e m a n d th a t d e g re e o f c e rta in ty befor e i tw oul d b e w il li ng t o r ecogni ze a t r adi t i on of o p e n n e ss . R a th e r th a n re q u irin g G a n n e tt t o sh o w th a t a stro n g p re su m p tio n o f o p e n n e ss e x ists, th e m a jo rity w oul d as k i tt o pr ove t h at r es t r i ct i ons have ne verand coul d neverhave been i m pos ed. B ycontr as t , t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas neverr equi r ed s uch an im p o s s ib le s ta n d a rd o f

p ro o f

. 5 7 1 A .2 d a t 7 5 7

– 5 8 (W a ls h , J ., d is s e n tin g ). 35 u s, it ap p e a rs th a t p u b lic k n o w led g e o f ju ro rs’ n a m e s is a w e lle s ta b lis h e d p a rt o f

A m e ri c a n ju d ic ia l tr a d itio n . T he G overnm ent ’ s s t r onges tar gum entt hatt her e i s no su ch tr ad it ion o f o p en n ess is b ase d o n 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 8 6 3 (b)(7 ), w hi ch i ns t ruct s D i s t r i ctC our t s t o put i nt o eff ecta j ur ys el ect i on p lan th a t w ill
fi x t he t i m e w h en t he names dr aw n fr om t he qual ifi ed j ur yw heel s hal l be di s cl os ed t o par t i es a n d to th e p u b lic

. I

f the pl an per m i t

s thes e nam es to b e m a d e p u b lic , i t m ay nevert hel es s per m i tt he chi ef j udge of the di s tr i ctcour t , ors uch other d istric t c o u rt ju d g e a s th e p lan m a yp ro v id e , to k ee p thes e n am es c o n fid en ti al in an yca se w h ere t he i nt er es t s of j us t i ce s o r equi r e. 28 U

. S. C

. § 1863( b) ( 7) ( 2000) ( emphasi s added)

. W hen36 C ongr es s enac t ed thi s pr ovi s i on i n 1968, t he ac compa n y ing leg isla tiv e h isto rye x p lain e d th a t it“ p e rm its th e p re se n t div e rsity of pr act i ce to co nt i nue. Som e di s t r i ctcour t s keep j ur ornames c o n f id e n tial f

o r f e a r o f ju rytam p e rin g . O th e r d istric t co u rts r out i nel ypubl i ci ze the names

. ” See I n r e G l obe N

ew s paper , 920 F .2 d 8 8 , 9 2 (1 st C ir. 1 9 9 0 ) (q u o ti n g H .R

. R e p . N o . 1 0 7 6 , 9 0 th C o n g ., 2 d S e s s ., re

p rin tedin 1 9 6 8 U

. S

. C

. C

. A

. N . 1 7 9 2 , 1 8 0 1 ). T h e G o v e rn m e n t a rg u e s th a t th e sta tu te a n d th is p a ss a g e f ro m its l egi s l at i ve hi s t or ys ugges tt hat , atl eas t as o f 1 968, no s t r ong tr ad itio n o f ju ror n am e d iscl o su re e x ist ed

. G o v ern m en t’ s R e s p o n s e a t 1 6

– 1 7

. W e ar e r el uct antt o aff or d t he r el evantl anguage of the sta tu te s ig n if

ica n t w e ig h t in th is c o n tex t. N o th in g in th e sta tu te i t s el f i ndi cat es w hether C ongr es s bel i eved thatal l ow i ng fede r al cour t s t o w i t hhol d j ur ornames w as cons i s t entw i t h hi s t or i cal p rac ti ce o r a sign ifi ca n t dep arture. T h e H o u se R ep o rtis m o re e x p licit o n th is po in t, sta tin g th a t th e sta tu te w a s m e r e ly in ten d e d to p re se rv e th e “ d iv e rsityo f p r a c tice ” th a t ex iste d in fede r al court s as of 1968. B utt he H ous e R epor ti s notan offi ci al expr es s i on of C ongr es s ’ s vi ew s , and i t s p er s uas i ve val ue is lim ited b e c a u se it p ro v id e s n o e v id e n c e to su p p o rt its c laim that su ch a “d iversity o f p rac ti ce ” e x ist ed at th e ti m e. M o reo v er, even i f the H ous e R epor tacc ur at el y char act er i zes t he pr act i ces of fede r al di s t r i ct cour t s i n 1968, i t i s nonethel ess c o n s i s t ent w i t h the propo si t i on t hat w i t hh oldi ng t he n am es of j urors i s a relati v elyrec en t ph en o m en o n . G iven the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s su g g e stio n th a t a p ro p e r an a ly sis o f “ e x p e rie n c e ” w ill e v a lu a teT he di s s ent s t at es t hat“[t ] he C om m i t t ee r ecomm ended 28 t hat ea ch D i s t r i ctC our tadopta rul e pr ovi di ng fors peci al m e a su re s to b e tak e n in c a se s lik e lyto re c e iv e sig n if ica n t m e d ia at t ent i on, i ncl udi ng” a di r ec t i o n th a tj u r o r s ’ names a nd addr es s es b e w ith h e ld . D is s e n t, i nfr a , at 26. T he di s s ent ’s l anguage (“s pecial m easures t o be taken ”) s ugges t s t hatt he C om m i tt ee 37 t r i al pr act i ces as t hey have devel oped over t he pas tm i l l enni um in c o u rt s a t a ll le v e ls , see P ress -E n terp rise II, 4 7 8 U. S

. a t 8 , we cannotdi s cern w hetherjuro r s ’ names ha ve tr adi t i onal l ybeen publ i c bas ed on an as s er t i on i n l egi s l at i ve hi s t or yfor t yy ear s ago t hats om e degr ee of

“di ver s i t y of pr act i ce” exi s t ed i n t he fe der al s y s te m . T he r epor t s publ i s hed in 1968 a nd 1980 byt he C om m i t t ee on the O per at i on of the J ur y Sy s t em of t he J udi ci al C o n f e re n c e o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s a re n o t to th e c o n t r a r y. See R epor tof the C om m i t t ee on t he O per at i on of the J ur ySy s t em on th e “ F re e P re s s -F a irT r i a l” Is s u e , r epr i nt ed i n 45 F. R

. D

. 391 ( 1968) ; R evi s ed R epor tof the J udi ci al C onfer ence C om m i t t ee o n th e O p e ra tio n o f

th e Ju ryS y ste m o n th e “ F re e P re ss -F a ir T ri a l” Is s u e , re

p r in tedin 87 F. R

. D

. 519 ( 1980)

. B ot h of the C o m m itt e e ’s r e p o rts re c o m m e n d th a t D istric t C o u rts a d o p t a rul e thatal l ow s j udges , “i n a ca s e w hich is l i kel yt o at t r act unus ual pub li ci t y , ” t o i s s ue a “ s peci al or der ” that“mi ghtbe addr es s ed” t o a var i ety of s ubj ect s , i ncl udi ng a di r ect ion t hat “the names and addr es s es of j ur or s or pr os pect i ve j ur or s notbe publ i cl yr el eas ed exc ept as r equi r ed bys t atut e. ” 45 F. R

. D

. at 28r ecomm ended thatD i s t r i ct C our t s adopta rul e r equi r i ngj udges t o w i t hh old j urors ’ nam es and a dd res ses i n h i gh -pr ofil e cases. For th e s a k e o f c l a r i t y , we n o t e t h a t t h e Commi t t e e s a i d t hat “[ s]uc h a sp ec ial o rde r m ightbe addr es s ed t o so m e o r a llof the fol l ow i ng s ubj ect s , ” i ncl udi ng t he w it h hol di ng of names a nd a d d re s s e s . 4 5 F .R .D . a t 4 0 9 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). 38 409–11; 87 F. R

. D

. at529–31. W e do notdi sp u te thata tr i al ju d g e h a s h isto ric a llyh a d th e p o w e r to iss u e su c h a n o rd e r in speci al cases. W e con cl ud e on l yt hat a tradit i on of o pen ness e x i s t s a n d t h a ta n o n ymou s j u r i e s h a v e b e e n t h e r a r e e x c e pt i on r a t h e rt h a n t h e n o r m.
I n s hor t , w e bel i eve t hat the “expe r i ence ” pr o n g o f the P ress -E n terp rise II

tes tfavor s a conc l us i on t hatj ur or s ’ names have tr adi t i onal l ybeen a vail ab le t o t he publ i c pr i ort o t he b eg inn ing o f tri al. If an y sign ifi ca n t ev iden ce to th e c o n trary exi s t s , w e have notdi s cover ed i ti n our r evi ew of cas e l aw and c o m m e n ta ry o n th is q u e s tio n . 2 . L o g ic
W e n e x t co n sid e r w h e th e r pr e su m p tiv e p u b lic a c c e ss to j ur or s ’ names pr i ort o empanel m ent“pl ay s a s i gni fi cantpos i t i ve ro le in th e f

u n c tio n in g ” o f

th e c ri m in a l ju s tic e s y s te m . See P r es s - E nt er

pr is e II, 4 7 8 U .S . at 8 . A s th e F irst C irc u it expl ai ned i n I

n r e G l obe N

ew s paperC o. , t he purpos es s erved by t he openne s s of tr i al s and voirdir e gener al l y ar e al s o s erved by39 pu bli c access t o the j urors ’ nam es:
K n o w led g e o f ju ro r id e n tit ies a llo w s th e p u b lic to ver i fyt he i m p ar t i al i t yof keypar t i ci pant s i n t he admi ni s t r at i on of j us t i ce, and t her ebyens ur es f a irn e ss , the a p p e a ra n c e o f f a irn e ss a n d p u b lic confi dence i n t hats y s t em . I ti s pos s i bl e, for exampl e, t hats us pi ci ons m i ghtar ise in a p arti cu lar tri al (or in a series o f tri als) that juro rs w er e s el ect ed fr om onl ya narr ow s oci al gr oup, or fr om per s ons w i t h cert ai n pol i t i cal aff i l i at i ons , or f r o m p e r s o n s a s s o c i a t e d wi t h o r g a n i z e d c r i me g ro u p s. It w o u ld b e m o re d if f icu lt to in q u ire in to su c h m a tters , an d th o se su sp icio n s w o u ld se e m in anyeventm or e real t o t he publ i c, i f names a nd addr es s es w er e kepts ecr et
. Fur t her m or e, inf o rm ati o n ab o u t juro rs, o b tai n ed fro m the ju rors t hemsel ves orot herw i s e, s erves t o ed u cat e the publ i c r eg ardi ng t he j udi ci al s y s t em and can be i mpor t a ntt o p ub l i c de ba t e a bo uti t s s t r e ngt hs, fl aw s and means t o i m pr ove i t
. . . . J ur orbi as or con fusi on m i gh tbe u nc o v e red, and j urors ’ under s t andi ng and r esp ons e t o j udi ci al p ro c e e d in g s c o u ld b e in v e stig a ted . P u b lic know l edge of jurori dent i t i es coul d al s o det er in te n tio n a l m is re p re s e n ta tio n a t v o ird ir e .

920 F. 2d at94. Publ i c ac ces s t o j ur or s’ n am es i s notw i t houtA l t ho ug h these r i sks m aybe g reat er w hen t he jur ors’ 29 ident i t i es ar e made publ i c dur i ng t r i al , t heyoft en exi s teven w hen the j ur or s ’ i dent i t i es w i l l r emai n s ecret unt i l t he end of t r i al

. Fi r s t , j ur or s m i ghtbe r el uct antt o convi cta def endantw ho i s know n t o be dange r ous for fea rof pos t
- t r i al r et al i at i on fr om th e d e f e n d a n t’s f

r ie n d s . S e c o n d , jur o rs m ig h t b e re lu c tan t to s er ve on a j ur y atal l i f theyt hi nk t hattheyw i l l be the s ubj ectof m edi a att ent i on pos t -t r i al

. T hi r d, j ur or s m i ghtl i e dur i ng v o ir dir e beca us e t heyfea rt hat , aft erthe tr i al , s ens i t i ve i nfor m at i on w ill b e re v e a le d

. 40 r i s ks

. Fi r s t , w hen the names of j ur or s ar e publ i c, fr i ends or enemi es of a cr i m i nal defe ndant m ay fi nd i teas i ert o i nfl uence the ju ry ’s d ec isi o n . In an ex tr em e ca se, th is c o u ld take the f o rm o f th re a ts to th e ju ro rs o r th e ir f a m ilym e m b e rs. S e c o n d , if ju ro rs k n o w th a t th e m e d ia w ill a ttem p t to c o n tac t th e m o r th e ir f a m ili e s, th e ym a yre sis t se rv in g o n h ig h -p r o f il e c a se s a t all beca us e theyfea r t hatt hei rpr i vacyw i l l be thr eat ened. T hi r d, pu bli c kn ow l ed g e o f

j urors ’ i den t i t i es m i gh tactuall yi ncrease th e risk o f

m isre p re se n tatio n a t voir d i re , b ec au se so m e juro rs w i l l be t empt ed t o l i e i n or dert o avoi d t he di s cl os ur e of embar r as s i ng i nfor m at i on. 29
D es pi t e thes e r i s ks , w e bel i eve thatt he j udic i al s y s t em ben efi t s fr om a presum pti on of p ub l i c access t o j urors ’ nam es. A cr i m i nal j ur ytr ia l ves t s t w el ve r andoml y - s el ect ed ci t i zens w i t h t he pow ert o deci de the fa t e of s om eone w ho t he s t at e has t a r g e t e d f

o rp r o s e c u t i o n . W e c a n n o tr e c o n c i l e t h e S up r e meW e ackn ow l edg e t hat our conclusi on i n the i nst ant cas e 30 m aybe i ncons i s t en t w i t h ourdi ct a i n U n itedS ta tes v . Sc a rfo , 8 5 0 F .2 d 1 0 1 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 8 ), in w h ich w e sa id th a t “a n o n ym ity w o u ld se em ent i r el ycons i s t entw i t h, r athert han ana t hema t o, t he j ur yconce pt ” an d that“the pr obabl e mer i t s of the anonym ous j ur ypr ocedur e ar e w or t hy , notof a pr es um pt i on of 41 C our t ’ s concl us i on t hatt he publ i c has t he r i ghtt o s ee the pr oces s i n w hi ch thi s pow eri s exer ci s ed (R ichm ond N ew spap ers ) a n d to se e th e p ro c e ss th a t se lec ts th o se w h o w ill exer cise the p o w er ( P r es s - E nt er pr is e I ), w ith the c o n clus ion that th e p u b lic h a s n o r ig h t to k n o w w h o u lti m a telye x e rc ise s th is pow er . A s t he Fi r s tC i r cu it sai d, “the pr os pectof cr i m i nal j us t i ce be i ng r out i nel ym et ed outby unknow n per s ons does not com p o r tw i t h democr at i c val ues of ac count abi l i t yand opennes s . ” G l obe N

ew s paper , 920 F. 3d at98. O f cour s e, i n a g iv e n c a se , a ris k o f ju ry ta m p e rin g o r e x c e ss iv e m e d ia har assm entm ayexi s t
. B utw e ar e s at i s fi ed thatdi s t r i ctj udges are w el l -posi t i on ed to add res s these ri sks on a c ase- by -cas e bas i s , and i n s uch cas es , t o m ake par t i cul ar i zed fi ndi ngs on t he r ecor d “es t abl i s hi ng t he exi s t ence of a c om pel l i ng governm ent i nt er es t ” and “ demonst r at i ng t hatabs entl i m i t ed r es t r i ct i ons on th e rig h t o f

a c c e ss , tha t o th e r in ter e st w o u ld b e su b sta n tially i m pai r ed. ” A nt ar , 38 F. 3d at 1 3 59 ( ci t i ng P ress -E n terp rise II, 478 U

. S. at 15)

. W e do notcons i dert hes e r i s ks s o per vas i ve as t o over com e t he bene fi t s of publ i c ac ces s . W e musts t r i ke the balance i n fav or of p resum pti ve p ub l i c access t o jur ors’ i den t i t i es. 30i r r egul ar i t y , butof di s i nt er es t ed appr ai s al bythe co u rt s . ” 850 F .2 d a t 1 0 2 3

. U n lik e th e in s ta n t c a s e , S c a rfo di d noti nvol ve a Fi r s tA m endment chal l enge a nd di d not ap p lyt he P ress E n terp rise II

t es t t o det erm i ne w hetherj ur or s ’ names s houl d be pr es um pt i vel ypubl i c. W e do notchal l enge S c a rfo ’ s concl us i on t hata di s tr ic tcour t ’ s deci s i ons aboutanonym i t ys houl d be re v iew e d f

o r a b u se o f

d isc re tio n w h e n n o o n e h a s ra ise d a v a lid F ir s t A m e n d m e n t c h a lle n g e . See i d. T he di s s entcl ai m s t hat“[c ] or rupt i on co u ld j us tas 31 e a silyb e ro o ted o u t p o st-tria l as it co u ld p re -tria l.” D iss e n t, i nfr a , at35. A l t hough w e agr ee thatcorrupt i on c o u ld be r oot ed o u t po st- tr ial , itis far m o re d esirab le to d isco v er it p re-tr ial

. It i s nei t herfai rnoreff

i ci entt o s ubj ecta def

endantt o a s econd tr ial b ec au se th e juryin the firsttr ial w as tainted

. M o reo v er, p o st-tria l d isc o v e ryo f

c o r r u p tio n sh a k e s p u b lic c o n f id e n c e in t h e v a l i d i t ya n d f

i n a l i t y o f c r i mi n a l j u r y v e r d i c t s . Of c o u r s e , we do nots ugges tt hata publ i c ri ght of acce s s t o j ur y names i s t he 42 F i nall y , w e beli eve thatt his presum pti ve F i rs t A m endment r i ghtof acc es s t o t he i dent i t i es of j ur or s at t ache s no la te r t h a n th e s w e a ri n g a n d e m p a n e lm e n t o f th e ju ry. C or rupt i on and bi as i n a j ur ys ho u l d be r oot ed outbefor e a defe ndanthas t o run t he gaunt l et of tr i al

. Publ i c know l edge of t he j ur or s ’ i dent i t i es i s des i r abl e i n par t beca us e i tcan de t ers uch corrupt i on and bi as . T he val ue of a nyr i ghtof acc es s , t hen, can onl ybe dim ini s hed af

t ert r i al has begun, and di m i ni s hed eve n fur theronce a ver di cthas been r ender ed by a corruptorbi as ed ju ry . W e a c k n o w led g e th a t, in th e w o rd s o f th e F irst C irc u it, 31m o st eff ec ti v e m etho d fo r un co v ering co rrup ti o n o r bias in ju ry s e le c tio n b e f

o re a tr ia l b e g in s . V

oirdir e , cond u ct ed byt he par t i es and the court , has t r adi t i onal l ybeen the pr i m arym ethod f o r a c c o m p lish in g th is. N o n e th e les s, w e b e liev e th a t p u b lic acc es s pl ay s an i m por t antr ol e i n t he cr i m i nal j us t i ce s y s t em by al l ow i ng t he publ i c t o verify , befor e a tr i al has begun, t hatt he tr ia l w ill p ro c e e d w ith a n im p a rt ia l ju ry. The D i s t r i c tCour tfo un d tha tt he medi a ha d n o Fi rs t 32 A m en d m en t r igh t t o o b tai n th e juro rs’ na m es, an d there fo re des cr i bed i t s deci s i on t o w i t hhold t he names as an exe r ci s e of 43 “ stro n g e r re a so n s to w ith h o ld ju ro r n a m e s a n d a d d re ss e s w ill o f ten e x ist dur i ngt r i al t han af t era ver di cti s r ender ed. ” G l obe N ew s paper , 920 F. 2d at9 1 (emphasi s i n or i gi nal )

. B utw e do n o t b e liev e th a t th e se re a so n s a re so c o m p e lli n g th a t th e yn e g a te a lto g e th e r th e e x iste n c e o f a F irst A m e n d m e n t rig h t o f a c c e ss to th e n a m e s d u rin g trial. R a th e r, a p re su m p tio n o f o p e n n e ss e x ists att he l at es tatt he t i m e of the s w ear i ng and empanel m entof the j ur y , reg ard les s of the fa ctt hata j udge mayfi nd “s t r onger re a s o n s ” f

o r o v e rc o m in g th is p re s u m p tio n d u ri n g tr ia l.

B.
W e now cons i der w hether t he D i s t r i ct C our tar t i cul at ed th e n e c e ss a ryf

in d in g s a n d c o n sid e ra tio n o f a ltern a tiv e s to over come t he pr es um pt i on that t he j ur or s ’ names s houl d be p u b l i cl y avail able. It provided three reas on s for exerci si n g its dis cret i on t o em pan el an an on y m o u s jury ; w e dis cuss these

32d is c re tio n th a t b a la n c e d “ c o m p e tin g c o n s titu tio n a l in te re s ts .” D e c . 2 1 O rd e r a t 2 6

– 2 7

. 44 r eas ons i n tur n.
F i rs t , t he D i stri ctC ou rtsai d t hat w i t hh oldi ng t he jur ors’ names i s nece s s ary t o pr event t he m edi a fr om publ i s hi ng s t or i es a b o u tt h e m: Fi r s t , fr om t he pr os pect i ve [ sic ] of the medi a, beca us e the me d i a r eques t s t he names and a d d re ss e s o f

th e p o ten tial j u ro rs, i f th o se re q u e sts w er e gr ant ed, t her e i s cert ai nl ya r eal pot ent i al t hatt he medi a w oul d us e thos e names ( and addr es s es ) t o devel op and publ i s h s t or i es about th e p r o sp e c tiv e ju ro rs, c o u p led w ith p o ss ib le in ter v ie w s o f

th e p o ten tial ju ro rs’ f a m ily m e m b e r s , c o -w o rk e rs, a n d f rie n d s. T h e m e d ia obviou sl ydoes notw antt he j ur or s ’ names a s an intell ec tual ex erc ise t o fil e in s o m e re p o rt er’s el ect roni c des k d raw er. If theyw ant the n am es, t heyw an t to do “r epor t i ng. ” I f the numer ous ex ce ll en t “i n v esti g a to ry ” re p o rt ers in W estern P enn sy l van i a ob t ai n the n am es and h om e add res s of the j urors , detai l ed “b ackg rou nd ” st ori es, b ef o re a n d d u ri n g the tr ial , are li k ely

. T h e C o u rt t hus has s er i o us conce r ns t hatt he di s s emi nat i on of s t or i es a b o utt he pr os pect i ve j ur or s ( and es peci al l yt he empanel ed j ur y ) w oul d have a r ealT he D i s t r i ct C our t appea r s t o bel i eve thatno good can 33 come f r om any s t or y publ i s hed about a j ur or . A s w e n ot ed above, h o w ev er, press in v esti g ati o n o f ju rors m igh t be benefi ci al i n s om e ca s es by , forexampl e, r evea l i ng pos s i bl e so u rce s of j ur orbi as ordet err i ng m i s r epr es ent at i on dur i ng voirdir e . 45 im p a c t o n th e ju ro rs’ w ill in g n e ss to se rv e a n d , if selec ted, on the ju rors’ ab il it ies t o rem ain f air, unbi as ed, and foc us ed on thi s cas e.
D ec. 21 O r derat28–29. T he pr os pectt hatt he pr es s m i ght p u b lish b a c k g ro u n d sto rie s a b o u t th e ju ro rs is n o t a le g a lly s uffi ci ent r eas on t o w i t hhol d t he j ur or s ’ names fr om t he publ i c. A lth o u g h su c h sto rie s m ig h t m a k e so m e ju ro rs le ss w ill in g to ser ve o r m ore di stract ed from t he case, t his i s a necessarycost of the openne s s of the j udi ci al pr oces s . T he part i ci pat i on of 33 j ur or s “i n publ i ci zed tr i al s m ays om et i m es for ce them i nt o t he li m eli g h t aga inst th eir w ishe s, ” b u t “[w ]e c an n o t acc ep t the m ere g e n e ra lize d p riv a c yc o n c e rn s o f ju ro rs” a s a su f f icie n t re a so n to c o n c e a l th e irid e n ti t i e s in e v e ry h ig h -p ro f ile c a s e . See G l obe N ew s paper , 920 F.2d at 98. T he D i s t r i ctC our thas not es t abl i s hed t hat t her e i s anyt hi ng unus ual aboutt hi s cas e, as i de fr om a l ocal l y pr om i nent defe ndant , t hatm akes t he pr os pect i ve j ur or s ’ hypot het i cal pr i vacyconce r ns m or e compel l i n g t han us ual

. T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s t at ement s amount t o t he s or tof

“ c o n c l u s o r y a n d g e n e r i c ” f i n d i n g t h a t we h a v e h e l d t o beT a k e n to it s log ical co n clus ion , the D istri ct C o u rt ’s 34 a rg u m e n t w o u ld a llo w ju d g e s to w ith h o ld th e n a m e s o f ju ro rs in everycas e thatm i ghtat t r actm edi a at t ent i on. I n fac t , as i de fr om t he r efe r ence t o “W es t ern Penns y l vani a” r epor t er s , anyot her c o u rt c o u ld c o p yth e D istric t C o u r t’ s s tate m e n t v e rb a tim to ju s tif ya n a n o n ym o u s ju ry in a n yh ig h -p ro f ile c a s e . 46 i nsuff i ci ent t o o vercom e t he p res um pti on of o pen ness. See 34 A nt ar , 3 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 6 3

. Second, the D i s t r i ctC our tci t ed the pos s i bi l i t yt hat fr i ends orenemi es of W echtw oul d at t empt t o i nfl u ence the j urors : S e c o n d ly , f

ro m th e p e rsp e c tiv e o f th e d e f e n d a n t, i f ther e i s m edi a cove r age di s s emi nat i ng the nam es ( and a dd res ses) of the prospecti ve jur ors, t hat c ov erage w ou l d u nd ou btedl yi ncrease the ri sk of int i m i dati on of thos e ju ror s as there i s a pr obabi l i t yt hat o t heri ndi vi dual s ( noti ncl udi ng the d ef en d an t h im self) w o u ld co n tact tho se ju rors in an att em p t to either h u rto r bo lst er d ef en d an t’ s cas e. J us tl i ke the di s t r i ctcour ti n t he S c a rfo case had conc erns t hat p ers ons hos t i l e t o defe ndant m ig h t h a v e b e e n in c lin e d to h a ra ss th e ju ro rs, th is C o u rtalso h as real co n ce rns th at pe rson s w h o are ei t herhos t i l e t o, orenamor ed w i t h, defe ndant w ou l d att em pt t o infl uen ce t he jur ors.T h e D istri ct C o u rt said in a fo o tno te that it w as “ aw are 35 o f th e a rgu m en ts m ad e b ythe gov ern m en t r eg ard ing d ef en d an t’ s a l l e g e d wi t n e s s i n t i mi d a t i o n , ” a n d r e f e r r e d t o a l e t t e rt h a tt wo i ndi vi dual s s entt o t he cour t as ki ng t hat t he j ur ybe anonym ous in lig h t o f

th re a ten in g lette rs th a t th e yh a d re c e iv e d f ro m W e c h t. D e c . 2 1 O rd e r a t 3 0 n .9 . B u t th e D istric t C o u rt d e n ie d th a t it w as r el y i ng on t hes e al l eged thr eat s “as t he basi s for i t s deci s i on t o empanel an i nnom i nat e j ur y , ” i d. , and d id n o ti ncl ude any fi ndi ngs of fa ct aboutt hem i n t he r ecor d. T hus , even a s s um i ng ar guendo t hatt hes e al l eged t hr eat s pr ovi de a j us t i fi cat i on foran 47 D ec. 21 O r derat 29. T hi s expl anat i on i s i ns uffi ci entt o j us t i fy w ith h o lding the n am es in this case

. A g ain, t h is i s a “ co n clus o ry and gene r i c” f

i ndi ng t hat cannot over come t he pre s um pt i on t hat j ur or s ’ names a r e publ i c i nfor m at i on. I n fac t, t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s reaso n ing w o u ld justi fyan o n ym ityin v irtuallyev ery j uryt ri al , w hether or n ot i tat t ract s m edia at t enti on , si nce alm ost al l defe ndant s have fr i ends and enem i es w ho m i ghtbe i ncl i ned t o i nfl uen ce j ur or s . T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s ci t at i on t o U ni t ed S ta tes v . Sc a rfo , 8 5 0 F

. 2 d 1 0 1 5 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 8 ), is r ev ea li n g . In S c a rfo , w e not ed t hat t he def endantbel onged t o an “or gani zed cri m e gro u p ,” had o rder ed “sev eral m urders ” (i ncludi ng t ho se o f a ju d g e a n d a p ro sp e c tiv e w itn e ss ), an d h a d a ttem p ted to b ri b e ju d g e s . I

d. a t 1 0 1 7 . In s h o r t, s p e c if ic r e a so n s e x iste d in S c a rfo t o bel i eve thatfr i ends of the def endant w oul d t hr eat en or br i be the j ur or s . T he D i s t r i ct C our t i n t hi s cas e has notpr ovi ded a n y th in g c lo se lyre se m b lin g th e sp e c if ic r e a so n s o f

f e re d in S c a rfo

. 35anonym ous j ur y , w e ca nnotr el yon t hem becaus e the D i s t r i ct C o u rt w as re qui r ed t o pl ace “fi ndi ngs on t he r ecor d w hi ch cl ear l yes t abl i s hed thatcl os ur e w as nece s s aryt o pr ot ectan overr i di ng i nt er es t
. ” A nt ar , 3 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 6 1

. 48 F i n a l l y , t h e D i s t r i c tCo u r tq u o t e d e x t e n s i v e l yf r o m a document t hat W echtfi l ed thatpurpor t s t o es t abl i s h t hathe has acqui r ed m any enemi es . T hi s document poi nt s outt hatW echt “has m ade co un t l ess cause and m a n n e r-o f -d e a th d e ter m in a ti on s” a s a w itn e s s in “ h u n d re d s o f h o m ic id e a n d o th e r c ri m in a l tr ia ls ,” s om e of w hi ch i nvol ve “the mostseriou s offe nder s of so c iety

— v io len t cr im in a ls,” a n d th a t h e re m a in s a w itn e ss in “pendi ng cr i m inal hom i ci de tr i al s . ” D ec. 21 O r derat29 ( quot ing D efe ndant ’ s B r i ef i n Suppor tof M ot i on For C l ar ifi cat i on A nd/ O rM odi fi cat i on of Tri al Pr ocedur es and Scop e of Exhi bi tand I n L i m i ne R ul i ngs at5, U ni t ed St at es v. W echt , N o. 2: 06- cr - 00026- A J S ( W

. D

. Pa. D ec. 4 , 2 0 07) ( “D efe ndant ’ s B r i ef” ) )

. I n addi t i on, t he documents ay s , he has par t i ci pat ed i n “hi gh- pr ofi l e” c i vi l cas es , i ncl uding w r ongful d e a th a c tio n s . Id

. at30 (quoti ng D efen dan t ’s B ri ef at6). A s a res ult , m anypeo ple “m ayharb o r i l l w i l l ” or “bear ani m us” to w a rd W e c h t. I

d. (cit ing D ef

en d an t’ s B ri ef

at 5– 6 ). M o reo v er, the do cu m en t say s that W ec h t’ s so n , as a “sitti n g fa m ilyc o u rt j udge i n A l l eghenyC ount y. . . [, ] m akes j udi ci al deci s i ons t hat a f f e c t p e o p le in th e m o st e m o tio n a l an d p a ss io n a te a re a s o f th e ir l i ves, ” and t hat s om e of these pe o p l e “m ayfeel w ronged as a r es ul tof hi s j udi ci al deci s i ons . ” I d. T he documentpoi nt s out that “[ t] h o se in d ividu als m ayfin d their w a y into D r. W ec h t’ sV oirdir e m aydet ectpr os pect i ve jur or s w i t h obvi ous 36 c o n n e c t i o n s t o We c h t , e v e n i f t h e y a r e a n o n ymo u s . Bu t i f we acc eptW echt ’ s as s er t i on t hathe has i ncurr ed the ani m us of c o u n tles s “ f

rie n d s” o f

th o se w h o w e re a f

f e c ted a d v e rse ly b yh is par t i ci pat i on i n t r i al s , s om e of thes e conne ct ions m i ghtnotbe obvi ous . M or eover , anyper s on w ho fee l s pas s i onat el yenough a b o u t W e c h t to th re a ten ju ro rs w o u ld p re su m a b lyb e w ill in g to l i e abouthi s orherconnec t i ons t o W echtdur i ng voirdir e , p r o t e c t e d b y a n o n ym i t y, i n o r d e r t o e a r n a s p o to n W e c h t ’ s j u r y.
49 pool of j ur or s . ” I

d.
T he D i s t r i ctC our tci t ed the s t at ement s i n t hi s document t o s up po r ti t s c on c l us i on t ha t , un l e s s t he j uryi s a no nym ou s, W echt ’ s m anyenemi es m i ght at t empt t o i nfl uence j ur or s . ( T he D i s t r i ct C our t al s o s ugges t s , w i t hout ci t i ng any evi denc e, that “pr es um abl y‘ unknow n’ fr i ends ” of W echt m igh t a l s o at t empt t o infl uen ce the jur y . D ec. 21 O rderat30

. ) W echt m ade these s t at ement s , how ever , i n s uppor tof the oppos i t e conc l us i on: t hat t he j urys houl d notbe anonym ous beca us e the def ens e and the m edi a m us t be abl e t o ens ur e thatW echt ’ s enemi es do notent er t he j ur ypool w i t hout bei ng det ect ed. D efe ndant ’ s B r i ef a t5–11. A s w e hav e exp l ai ned , on e of the purposes of ac cess t o jur ors’ names i s t o m ake thi s t ype of i nves t i gat i on pos s i bl e. 36 M or eover , t he quot ed s t at ement s cons i s t l ar gel y of s pecul at i on t hatpeop le m i ghtbe hos t i l e t ow ar d W echt ; t heydes cr i be no s peci fi c i ns t ance s i n w hi ch W echt ’ s enemi es orfr i ends hadW e n ee d n o t con d u ct a n “e x p erien ce an d log ic” inq u iry 37 i nt o w hethera publ i c r i g htof ac ces s t o voirdir e pr ocee di ngs exi s t s , beca us e P r es s - E nt er pr is e I es t abl i s hed thatt hi s r i ght e x is ts . 4 6 4 U .S . a t 5 0 8

. 50 t hr eat ened orhar as s ed any one. T he m er e fac tt hatpeopl e mi ght h a v e p a ss io n a te o p in io n s a b o u t a d e f e n d a n t is n o t e n o u g h to ju stif ya n a n o n ym o u s ju ry . T h e D istric t C o u rt m u st a rtic u la te so m e re a so n to c o n c lu d e th a t th e risk s th a t s u c h p e o p le p o se to t he j ur or s ar e s er i ous and s peci fi c enough to jus t i fydepr i vi ng t he publ i c ( and, i n t hi s cas e, t he def endant ) of know l edge of t he ju ro rs’ id e n tit ies . B e c a u se th e D istric t C o u r t d id little m o re in th is c a se th a n q u o te f

a c tu a l as se rtio n s th a t W e c h t o f f e re d in oppos i t i on t o j ur yanonym i t y , w e conclu d e t hati tdi d not o v e rc o m e th e p re s u m p tio n in f a v o r o f d is c lo s u re . V I.
T he M edi a- I nt ervenor s al s o chal l enge the voirdir e pr ocedur e adopt ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t
. T hey cont end t hatby u sin g Ju ro r Q u e stio n n a ire s in ste a d o f in -c o u rt voirdir e t o m ake

“ f o r c a u se ” d e ter m in a tio n s u n til th e v e n ire h a s b e e n re d u c e d to fort yprospecti v e j urors , t he D i stri ctC ou rtviol at es theirF i rs t A m endment r i ghtof ac ces s t o voirdir e pr ocee di ngs . T heydo 37 notr eques ti m m edi at e ac ces s t o t he ac tual ques ti o n nai r es but in ste a d d e m a n d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o n d u c t voirdir e i n open co u rtin ad d it ion to u sing the q u esti o n n aires. M ed ia’s E m er gencyM ot i on at4 n. 1. A ccor ding t o t he M edi a-51 In ter v e n o rs, th e yse e k in -c o u rt voirdir e in o rd e r to a llo w p u b lic acc es s t o “i nfor m at i on t r adi t i onal l yr ev eal ed dur i ng voirdir e ( j u r o rn a m e s , a r e a w h e r e a j u r o rl i v e s , e m p l o ym e n t , f a m i l y, et c. )

. ” I d. a t 1 6

. W e r ej ect t he M edi a- I nt ervenor s ’ r eques t fort w o r el at ed r eas on s . Fi r s t , u n l i k e t h e M e d i a - I n t e r v e n o r s ’ r e q u e s tf o rt he n a m e s o f p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro rs, th e re q u e st f o r in -c o u rt voirdir e is notm er el ya r eques tforacc es s t o i nfor m at i on, buta r eques tt hat t h e Di s t r i c tCou r tc o n d u c ta s p e c i f i c p r o c e d u r e andt hatt he M e d ia- In ter v e n o rs h a v e a c c e ss to th a t p ro c e d u re . It i s w e lles t abl i s hed that “t he met hod of conduc t i ng t he voi rdi r e i s l eft t o t he s ound di s cr et i on of the di s t r i ctcour t
. ” W a ldo rf v . Sh u ta , 3 F. 3d 705, 710 ( 3d C i r . 1993)

. I n a voirdir e pr oces s i nvol vi ng 400 pr os pect i ve j ur or s , w e b el i eve thata tr i al j udge has di s cr et i on t o conduct p ar tof the pr oces s excl us i vel ybas ed on w ritten q u e stio n n a ire s, so lo n g a s it is c o n sis ten t w ith e s ta b lis h e d p ro c e d u ra l ru le s (e .g ., F ED
. R. C R IM
. P. 24)

. Second, w e beli eve that ou r order requi ri ng t he D i stri ctC ou rtt o rel ease the n am es o f p rosp ec ti v e juro rs gra n ts th e M ed ia-Interve n o rs m o st o f th e re lief th e y se e k

. B e c a u se th e p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro rs w ill n o t b e a n o n ym o u s, th e M e d ia -In ter v e n o rs w ill h a v e a v a ilab le in f o rm a tio n to in v e stig a te a n d d e tec t p o ss ib le im p ro p e r b ias in

“ f o r c a u s e ” d e te rm in a tio n s , s h o u ld th e ye le c t to d o s o . V II.
I n s um , w e have ar t i cul at ed in thi s opi ni on t he r eas onsS u f f ice it t o sa y , the f

a c t th a t th e a c c u se d h e re su p p o rts 38 th e M e d ia -I n te rv e n o rs ’ a p p e a l— w h ic h o f te n is n o t th e c a s e , s ee, e. g. , A B C, Inc. , 3 6 0 F .3 d a t 9 8

– 9 9 ; B l ack , 483 F. Supp. 2d at 6 2 0

— b o l s t e r s t h e r e s u l tw e r e a c h t o d a y. 52 s u p p o rt i ng ourJ anuary9 O r dervaca t i ng t he pr ovi s i ons of the D is tr i ctC ourt ’ s or derthatr estri cted ac ce ss o f M ed ia-Interve n o rs and defe nse cou nsel t o the j urors ’ nam es. 38I n t h i s o p i n i o n , I a d o p t t h e M a j o r i t y ’ s u s e o f

t h e t e r ms 39 “pr os pect i ve j ur or s , ” w hi ch re fer s t o t he m ember s of t he veni r e, and “tr i al j ur or s , ” w hi ch r efe r s t o t he mem ber s of t he veni r e w ho a re c h o s e n to c o m p o s e th e a c tu a l tr ia l ju ry. I a ls o n o te th a t th e ju ry in th is c a s e is n o t “ a n o n ym o u s ,” as t he par t i es w i l l know every t hi ng about t he j ur or s , inc l udi ng th e ir n a m e s an d o th e r pe rso n a l in f o rm a tio n , an d th e p u b lic w ill know every t hi ng aboutt he j ur o rs exceptt hei rnames. T he 53 U ni t ed St at es v. W echt , N o. 07- 4767
V A N A N T W E R P E N , C ir cu itJu d g e , concur r i ng i n par tand dis sent i ngi n p art
. A lth o u g h I se ld o m f

in d it n e c e ss a ryto d iss e n t, I w rite separat el yt od aybecau se the M aj ori t y ’s o p in ion igno res a s ubs t ant i al vol um e of c as e l aw , s t atut es pas s ed byC ongr es s , and t he est abli shed p ract i ces of m anyof thi s coun t ry ’s cou rt s. To d a y ’ s o p i n i o n wi l l u n d o u b t e d l yc a u s e s i g n i f i c a n tp r o b l e ms and d elay s i n ourdi s t r i ctcour t s i f the M aj or i t y ’ s expans i on of t he col l at er al or derdoctr i ne and i t s announce m entof a ne w c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t a re p e rm itte d to s ta n d

. I di s s entfr om t he M aj or i t y ’ s hol di ng t hat t hi s C our thas j uri sdi ct i on att his t i m e t o en t ert a in the M edia- Int erveno rs ’ m ot i on and t hat t he M edi a- I nt ervenor s ar e ent i t l ed, as a mat t er of cons t i tut i onal r i ght , t o t he nam es of al l of the pr os pect i ve and t r i a l j u r o r s p r i o rt o t h e e m p a n e l m e n to f t h e t r i a l j u r y. 39D i s t r i ctC our tw as t her efor e corr ecti n r efe r r i ng t o this juryas “i nnom i nat e, ” r athert han “a nonym ous . ” Fur t her m or e , t her e has been no i ndi cat i on that the tr i al j ur or s ’ names w i l l notbe re lea se d f

o llo w in g th e trial. I jo in the M ajority ’s ho lding that the D istri ct C o u rt ’s 40 us e of the ques t i onnai r es forj ur ys el ect i on i s per m i s s i bl e. I am al s o of the vi ew t hatt he names o f tho se pr os pect i ve j ur or s not selec ted f

o r j u ryserv ice sho u ld be disclo sed o n ce the tri al j u ry is s e a ted . O b v io u sly , su c h d isc lo su re is c o n tin g e n t o n th e a b ili ty o f th e p arti es to k ee p the n am es o f th e p ro sp ec ti v e juro rs confi dent i al , and the D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d t ake the ac t i ons n e c e ss a ryto e n su re th e p a rties d o k e e p th e n a m e s c o n f id e n tial. T he t i m e and m anner of di s cl os ur e i s w i t hi n t he di s cr et i on of the D i s t r i ctC our t , how ever ; i ti s notcons t i tuti onal l ym andat ed. A ddi t i onal l y , t he uni que ci r cumst ance s of t hi s cas e l i kel yj us t i fy w i t hhol di ng t he names of t he t r i al j ur or s at l eas tunt i l the end of the t r i al

. I ns ofaras t he M aj or i t yopi ni on s ugges t s t hatt he D istric t C o u rt h a s th e d isc re tio n to m a k e th e se d isc lo su re s, I jo in t hatpar tof the opi ni on. 54 A ddi t i onal l y , I di s agr ee w i t h t he r emedyfas hi oned byt he M aj or i t y , as i n m yo p i ni on i tamount s t o i m per m i s s i bl e mi cr om a n a g e m e n t o f

p ro c e d u re s a n d d e c isio n s t h a t a re p ro p e rly delegat ed to t he d i scr et i on of d i stri ctj ud ges. 40
I

. A ccor di ng t o t he M aj or i t y , t his C our thas j ur i s di ct i onA s a gene r al rul e, t hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on t o hear 41 a p p e a ls o n ly f

ro m f in a l d e c is io n s o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s . See 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 ; see al

so C oh en v. Ben ef

i ci al Indu s. L oa n C orp ., 337 U

. S. 541, 545 ( 1949) ( not i ng t hat 28 U

. S. C

. § 1291 “pr ovi des

. . . forap p eal onl y‘ fr om al l fi nal deci s i ons of the d istric t co u rts,’ e x c e p t w h e n d ir e c t ap p e a l to th is C o u rt is p rov ided ”); B i nes v. Kul aylat , 215 F. 3d 381, 384 ( 3d C i r . 2000) (“ A s a g e n e ra l ru le , w e h a v e n o ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 to re v ie w in te rl o c u to ry o rd e rs . . . .” ). 55 overt he M edi a- I nt er venors ’ m ot i on byvi r tue of the col l at er al or derdoctr i ne. I n li g htof the narr ow natur e of the col l at er al or derdoctr i ne and the narr ow i s s ue pr es ent ed i n t he i ns t antcas e, I r es pect ful l ydi s agr ee. A.
C ol l at er al or der s , t hos e or der s t hat“fi nal l ydet erm i ne cl ai m s of r i ghts epar abl e fr om , and col l at er al t o, r i ght s as s er t ed i n t h e a c tio n ,” a re a n a rr o w e x c e p tio n to th e ru le o f f in a lity, 41 a n d a re t h u s re v ie w a b le o n a n in te rl o c u to ry b a s is

. C ohen v. B enefi ci al I

nd us. L oa n C orp ., 3 3 7 U .S . 5 4 1 , 5 4 6 (1 9 4 9 ); s ee al s o B i nes v. Kul aylat , 2 1 5 F .3 d 3 8 1 , 3 8 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). T h is C o u rt c o n sid e rs a d istric t c o u rt’s d e c isio n to b e a r e v ie w a b le col l at er al or deri f i tm eet s al l of the cr i t er i a set f o rth byt he Supr eme C our t : ( 1) t he or derm us t“conc l us i vel ydet erm i ne the di s put ed que s t i on; ” ( 2) t he or derm us t“r es ol ve an i m por t ant i s s ue compl et el y s epar at e fr om t he mer i t s of the ac t i on; ” and ( 3)Ju d g e A ldisertalso ex p resse d co n ce rn w ith the e v er- 42 expandi ng s cope of t he col l at er al or derdoctr i ne i n B or den C o. v . S y lk , 410 F. 2d 843, 845- 46 ( 3d C i r . 1969) : “W e have det ect ed w hatappea r s t o be an i r r es i s t i bl e i m pul s e on the p ar tof appel l ant s t o i nvoke the ‘ col l at er al or der ’ doctr i ne w heneve rt he q u e stio n o f

a p p e a lab ili ty a rise s. W e re w e to a c c e p t ev e n a sm a ll p erc en tage o f th ese so m eti m e [ sic] ex o ti c i n v o ca ti o n s, this co u rt w oul d undoubt edl y fi nd i t s el f r evi ew i ng m or e ‘ col l at er al ’ t han

‘ f i n a l ’ o r d e r s . ” T h e f

l o o d o f mo t i o n s r e l a t e d t o t h i s c a s e t h a twe have f ace d and cont i nue t o fac e bear s w i t nes s t o t he w i s dom of Judg e A l dis ert ’s w ords. 56 t h e o r d e rmu s t“ b e e f

f e c t i v e l yu n r e v i e wa b l e o n a p p e a l f r o m a fi nal j udgm ent
. ” See Coopers & Lybr and v. Li ves ay , 43 7 U. S. 4 6 3 , 4 6 8 (1 9 7 8 ); see al so Y ou ng blood v. D eW

eese , 3 5 2 F. 3d 8 3 6 , 8 3 8 n .1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).
A s bot h t h e S u pr eme C our tand thi s C our thave emphasi z e d o n n u me r o u s o c c as i ons , t he col l at er al or derdoctr i ne s houl d be const rued narr ow l y , l es tt hi s exce pt i on t o t he fi nal ju d g m e n t ru le s w a llo w th e ru le its e lf

. See , e. g. , D igi t alE qui p. Cor p . v . Des k t o

p Di r e c t , I nc. , 511 U

. S. 863, 868 ( 1994) ( des cr i bi ng t he col l at er al or der doct r i ne as “narr ow ” and

“ strin g e n t”) ; W

e , In c . v. C ity o

f P h ila d e lp h ia , 174 F. 3d 322, 324 (3d C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( “W e hav e foll ow ed [the S up rem e C ou rt ’s ] admoni t i on and cons i s t ent l ycons t rued the col l at er al or der e x c e p tio n n a rro w ly

. . . . ” ). In d e f in in g w h a t o rd e rs f

a ll w ith in 42 t h e n a r r o w s c o p e o f

t he c ol l a t e r a l o r d e rd o c t r i n e , t h e S u p r e me57 C our t not ed t hat t he col l at er al or der doctr i ne’ s “r eac h i s l i m i t ed t o tr i al cou rt orders affecti ng ri gh t s that w i l l be irretri evab l yl ost i n t he abs ence of an i m m ed iat e appeal

. ” R ich a rd so n -Me rr e ll, I nc. v. Kol l er , 4 7 2 U .S . 4 2 4 , 4 3 0 -3 1 (1 9 8 5 ).
I n cr i m i nal cas es , t hi s C our t m us t be eve n m or e vi gi l ant i n ens ur i ng t hatt he col l at er al or derexce pt i on i s cons t rued n a rro w ly , as w e h a v e b e e n c a u tio n e d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt to app l yt he co l l at eral order excep t i on “w i t h the ut m oststri ct ness” in s u c h c a s e s . See Mi dl and A s phal tC or

p. v. U ni t ed Stat es , 489 U .S . 7 9 4 , 7 9 9 (1 9 8 9 ); F l anagan v. U ni t ed Stat es , 465 U

. S. 259, 2 6 5 (1 9 8 4 ). S u c h a st r ic t c o n stru c tio n is n e c e ss a ryto a v o id del ay s due t o pi ece m eal appel l at e l i t i gat i on, as t hes e del ay s m ay w or k t o t he detr i m entof the r i ght s of t he defe ndantorpr ej udi ce th e p ro s e c u tio n ’s a b ility t o p ro v e its c a s e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Ma cD o n a ld , 435 U

. S. 850, 853 -54 ( 1978) ( not i ng that“[t ] he rul e of f i nal i t yhas par t i cul arfor ce i n cr i m i nal pr os ecut i ons beca us e ‘ encour agementof del ayi s fat al t o t he vi ndi cati o n of th e c rim in a l law ’” ); see a l so G ov’t of V

i rgi n Is l an ds v. R i vera , 333 F. 3d 143, 150 n. 16 ( 3d C i r . 2003) (“In the co nt extof a c rim in a l ca se , the c o llate ra l o rd e r d o c trin e is u se d sp a rin g ly beca us e of the nee d t o eff ec ti vel yand ef

fi ci ent l yconcl ude crim inal p roc ee d ing s, w ith o u t piece m ea l i n terrup ti o n s. ”). A cc o rdin g ly , interl o cu to ryap p ea ls i n crim inal ca ses a re perm i t t ed u nd er the co l l at eral order doctr i ne o n ly i n the m ost ra re a n d e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See Fl anagan , 465 U

. S. at 270.T he M aj or i t y ’ s t hor ough anal y s i s of the s econd pr ong 43 is c o rre c t b e c a u se th e iss u e o f ju ryse lec tio n is s u f f icie n tly s epar at e fr om t he mer i t s t o s at i s fyt hi s pr ong. 58 B.
I n l i ghtof thi s C our t ’ s pr act i ce of cons t rui ng t he col l at er al o rderdoctr i ne narr ow l y , t he appe al of the D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s D ec em b er 21 , 2 0 0 7 o rde r (“D ec em b e r 2 1 O rde r”), w hi ch s etfor th t he pr ocedur es for s el ect i ng t he j ur y , i s notone of the “r ar e” c i r cumst ance s i n w hi ch thi s C our ts houl d gr ant in ter lo c u to ryre v iew . A p p e lla te r e v iew is n o t ju stif ied a t th is t i m e bec aus e t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or der does nots at i s fyei t hert he fi r s t or t he thi r d pr ong of the C oopers & Lybr and tes t. S e e We , 43 174 F. 3d at 324 ( “I f t he or der at i s s ue fai l s t o s at i s fyanyone of [the C oopers & Lybr and ] r e q u ire m e n ts, it i s n o t an a p p e a lab le c o lla te ra l o rd e r.” ).
1.
T he fi r s tpr ong of the C oopers & Lybr and t e s tr e q u i r es t hatt he or derati s s ue “c oncl u sivel ydet erm i ne the di s put ed ques t i on. ” See Coopers & Lybr and , 437 U

. S. at468. A s t he M aj or it y corr ect l ynot es , t hi s pr ong of the t es ti s aki n t o t he r e q u i r e me n tt h a tt h e o r d e rb e i n g a p p e a l e d b e a f i n a l o r d e r ; we w i l l notr evi ew an orde r thati s “t ent at i ve, i nfor m al or i ncompl et e. ” See Cohen , 3 3 7 U

. S

. at 5 4 6

. T h e D istri ct C o u rt ’s D ece m ber21 O r ders et s for t h w hat it co n si der ed t o be theA t the veryl eas t , t he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have be en 44 gi ven the oppor tuni t yt o m ake fur t her m odi fi cat i ons i n l i ghtof the M edi a- I nt er venor s ’ ar gum ent s . A bet t erm ethod for chal l engi ng t hes e pr ocedur es pr i or t o empanel m entw oul d have been byw ayof a s t ayw i t h an i ni t i al appl i cat i on t o t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt
. See F ed. R

. A pp . P

. 8(a)

. T he M edia- Int erveno rs ’ m ot i on t o t h i s Cou r twas f o rs u c h a s t a y , o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e, f o r su m m a ry re v e rsa l. B e c a u se th e M a jo rityg ra n ted re v e rsa l, i t c o n sid e re d th e m o tio n f o r a sta yto b e m o o t. A s e x p la in e d in th is o p in io n , rev e rsa l o f

th e D istric t C o u rt is in a p p ro p ria te a t th is tim e . L ik e w ise , the m o tio n f o r a sta yo f

ju ryse lec tio n sh o u ld have be en deni ed, as t he M edi a- I nt ervenor s di d no tm ake that m ot i on befor e the D i s t r i ct C our t , nor di d t heys uffi ci ent l yal l ege 59 fi nal i zed pr ocedur es fors el ect i ng t he j ur y . A l t hough t he D ece m ber21 O r der purpor t s t o be a “fi nal or der ” on t he i s s ue of j ur y s el ect i on, i tw as onl yone s t ep i n a pr oces s of m odi fi cat i ons and c o u l d h a v e b e e n f

u r t h e r mod i f

i e d b y t h e Di s t r i c t Cou r t up unt i l t he t i m e t he proc edur es w er e ac tual l yi m pl ement ed. Such m o d if ica tio n s o f

trial p ro c e d u re s a re c lea r lyw ith in th e a m p le d iscreti o n o f th e D istri ct C o u rt
. S e e , e .g ., W a ldo rf v . Sh u ta , 3 F. 3d 705, 710 (3d C i r . 1993) ( not i ng t hat“the met hod of conduct i ng t he voi rdi r e i s l eftt o the so u n d di s cr et i on of the d istric t co u rt,” a n d th a t “[ b ]e c a u se v o ir d ire d e ter m in a tio n s ‘r e ly l ar gel y on . . . i m m edi at e per cept i ons , ’ di s t r i ctcour t s have be en aw ar ded ampl e di s cr et i on i n det erm i n ing h ow bes tt o conduct t he voi r di r e”)

. T hus , t he D ece m ber 21 O r der di d notbecome a “fi nal or der ” fort he purpos es of ourr evi ew unt i l t he pr oces s s et for th i n t he O r derw as actual l yi m pl ement ed. 44w hys uch an appl i cat i on t o t he D i s t r i ct C our t w oul d have be en im p ra c tic a b le

. See F ed

. R

. A p p . P

. 8 (a). 60 A s t he M aj or i t ycorr ect l ys ugges t s , t he mer e fa ctt hatan o rde r c o u ld

have been m odi fi ed does notm ean the or deri s not f in a l. See M a

j. O p ., supra , a t 1 9 n .1 4 ; s ee al s o Mos es H

. C one Mem ’l H osp . v. Merc u ry C ons tr . C or p. , 460 U

. S. 1, 11- 13 & n . 14 ( 1983)

. A s t he Supr eme C our ts t at ed i n Me r cury C ons tr uct i on , “[ t ] he r eas oni ng of C oopers & Lybr and [that som e orders t hat m ay be subj ect t o r evis i on are no t fi nal or ders] d o e s n o t re a c h a ll p r e tr ia l o rd e rs th a t ar e f o rm a llysu b

jec t to r evi s i on, butonl yt hos e as t o w hi ch s om e rev isi o n m ight r eas onabl

y be expec t ed i n t he ordi nary cour s e of l i t i gat i on. ” See id

. at12 n. 14 ( emphasi s added)

. G i ven thatdi s t r i ctcour t s have s i gni fi cantdi s cr et i on i n fas hi oni ng t he manner i n w hi ch a tr i al w i l l be conduct ed, i ti s ent i r el yr eas onabl e and f or es eea bl e that or der s es t abl i s hi ng j ur ys el ect i on and tr i al p roc edur es w i l l be su bject t o m od i fi cat i on at any t i m e and for any reas on pri or to t he t i m e th e t r i al actual l ycomm ence s . T hus , t he fa ctt hatt he D istri ct C o u rtissue d it s D ec em b er 2 1 O rde r relat ing to jury se lec tio n a lm o s t th re e w e e k s b e f o re ju ryse lec tio n w a s s e t to b e g in b e lies th e M a

jo rity ’s c o n ten tio n th a t th is o rd e r w a s s e t in s to n e . A l t hough t he M aj or i t ys ugges t s t hat t he r ecor d does not r e v e a l a n ye v i d e n c e t h a tt h e Di s t r i c tCou r tc o n t e m pl at ed m odi fy i ng t he O r derbetw een D ece m b er 2 1 and the begi nni ng of j ur ys el ect i o n , t he r ecor d i s r epl et e w i t h evi dence thatt heB e tw e e n Ju ly1 4 , 2 0 0 6 , the d ate o f th e o ri g inal jury 45 sel ect i on order, and D ecem ber 21, 2007 , t he d at e of the m ost r ece ntj ur ys el ect i on o rde r, m ul t i pl e cha nges w er e made t o t he p resc ri b ed p roc ess, i n clud ing : hav ing the C o u rtA d m inistrator, as o p p o sed to the Ju d g e, si g n th e le tter t o p rosp ec ti v e juro rs fol l ow i ng an obj ect i on byW echt ; havi ng t he j ur or s compl et e the for m s i n cour t , as oppos ed t o athom e; i ncl udi ng i n t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s i ni t i al or der ( J ul y 14, 2006) a not at i on t hatt he pr opos ed pl an w as s ubj ect t o m odi fi cat i on; openi ng up t he pr oces s t o t he p u b lic b yin c lu d in g in -c o u rt voirdir e once t he veni r e of 400 has been c ul l ed dow n t o 40; r el eas i ng t he j ur y ques t i onnai r es t o t he m edi a fol l ow i ng t h e tr ia l ; and ac comm odat i ng t he numer ous qu e s t i o n s s u b mi t t e d b yt h e p a r t i e s f o ri n c l u s i o n i n t he ques t i onnai re, w hi ch w as devel oped dur i ng num er ous co n fe ren ce s w ith the p arti es. In sh o rt , the f ac ts do n o t sup p o rt t he cont ent i on t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti s s o s et i n i t s pr ocedur es that co n tem p lat ing m o d ifi ca ti o n w o u ld b e u n rea so n ab le. T h ere i s nothi ng on t he record or dis cussed i n the M edia- Int erveno rs ’ br i ef thats ugges t s t he D i s t r i ct C our t w oul d nothave c ons i der ed acc om m odat i ng a r eques tt o fur t her m odi fyt he pr ocedur es , had s uch a mot i on actual l ybeen made. 61 D istric t C o u rt h a d p re v io u slyb e e n m o re th a n a c c o m m o d a tin g in devel op ing an d m o d ify ing the p roc ed u res f o r j u ryselec ti o n fr om t he t i m e i t fi r s tannounce d t hos e pr ocedur es on J ul y14, 2006. 45 B ec a u s e t h e Di s t r i c tCou r twor k e d wi t h th e p a r t i e s t o d e vel op t he j ur y s el ect i on pr ocedur es , and bec aus e the D i s t r i ctC our thad s i gni fi cant di s cr et i on t o m odi fyt he or derpr i ort o j ur ys el ect i on, i t i s notr eas onabl e t o pr es um e thatt he D ece m ber21 O r derw asT he M aj or i t ys ugges t s t hatt he D ece m ber21 O r derw as 46 fi nal beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our t ru le d agai ns tt he M edi aI nt er venor s on t hei r pr evi ous obj ect i ons t o t he O r der

. T hi s fac t al one does notdemonst r at e tha tt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d not cont empl at e any m o d if

ica tio n to th e D e c e m b e r 2 1 O rd e r; it on ly su g g e sts th a t th e D istric t C o u rt w a s u n li k e lyto a c c o m m o d a te t he s peci fi c modi fi cat i ons r eques t ed byt he M edi a. T he part yas s er t i ng t hi s C our t ’s j ur i s di ct i on overan 47 appea l ora mot i on alw ays has t he bur den of de m ons t r at i ng t hat s u c h ju ri s d ic tio n e x is ts
. See, e. g. , Sa m uel- B asset tv. K i a Motors A m er i ca, I

nc. , 357 F. 3d 392, 396 ( 2004) ( “The par t yas s er t i ng

62 the f inal w o rd o n juryselec ti o n . If a n y thing , the re co rd i nd i c a t e s t ha tha d the M e di a - I nt e r ve no r s ort he de fe nd a ntfi rs t a ttem p ted to se e k re lief f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt, th e ym a yw e ll have be en s ucce s s ful

. A ddi t i onal l y , i f t he M edi a- I nt ervenor s or t he defe ndant had pet i t i oned t he D i s t r i ctC our tform odi fi cat i on o f th e D e c e m b e r 2 1 O rd e r, in ste a d o f im m e d iate lyc o m in g to t hi s C o u r tforr el i ef, t her e w oul d atl eas tbe s om e evi dence on t he r ecor d as t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i ncl i nat i on t o m odi fyt he O r der

. N o su ch at t empt w as m ade, how ever , and thus no evi dence exi s t s as t o w hethert he D i s t r i ctC ou r tcont empl at ed m o d ifi ca ti o n o f th e D ec em b er 2 1 O rde r. See M aj

. O p. , supra , 46 a t 1 9 n .1 4

. B eca us e the M edi a- I nt ervenor s have notme tth e i rb ur den o f d e m o n stra tin g th a t th e D e c e m b e r 2 1 O rd e r “ c o n c lu siv e ly det erm i ned” the pr ocedur es fors el ect i ng t he j ur y , t heycannot 47j ur i s di ct i on bear s t he bur den of s how i ng t hat at al l s t ages of the l i t i gati on t he case i s properl y befo re t he fe deral cou rt
. ”). T hu s, t he M edi a- I nt er venor s m us tpoi ntt o s om e evi dence t hatt he D istric t C o u rt di d notcont empl at e modi fi cat i on of anyas pectof t he De c e mbe r2 1 o r d e r , o t h e rt h a n s u g g e s t i n g t h a tt h e Di s t r i ct C o u rt w a s u n lik e ly to m o d if y th e D e c e m b e r 21 O rd e r m e r e ly b e c a u se it h a d ru led a g a in st th e M e d ia- In ter v e n o rs in th e p a st. A s n o ted a b o v e , th e M e d ia- In ter v e n o rs c a n n o t sa tisf yth e ir bur den of de m ons t r at i ng t hatj ur i s di ct i on exi s t s . T he evi dence t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our thad pr ev iou slym odi fi ed the opi ni on m ul t i pl e t i m es and the fa ctt hatt he D i s tr ict C our thas t he d isc re tio n o v e r tria l p ro c e d u re s s u g g e st th a t itis u n re a so n a b le to pr es um e thatt he D ece m ber21 O r derw as fi nal atanypoi ntpr i or t o t he begi nni ng of j ur ys el ect i on. A s t he M aj or i t ycorr ect l ynot es , t he G overnm ent s ugges t ed t hat i t w as notgoi ng t o cont es tt he fi r s tpr ong of the P ress -E n terp rise II

te s t. See M a

j

. O p ., supra , at19- 20. H ow ever, as the M aj ori t ycorr ect l yno t es, t his fai l ure t o co ntes t t hat i s s ue i s i n no w aydi s pos i t i ve of the i s s ue bef or e us : w hether c o lla te ra l o rd e r ju ri s d ic tio n is a p p ro p ri a te
. Id

. at20 n. 15. T he G o v e rn m e n t’s re sp o n se sh o u ld n o t b e re a d in su c h a w a y as to cons t rue i t s fai l ur e t o expl i ci t l ycont es tt he i s s ue as a conc es s i on. See G overnm ent ’ s R es pons e at 8- 9 ( not i ng t hat “the or der r egar di ng j ur ys el ect i on m ay s at i s fy t he fi r s tr equi r ementof the col l at er al or derdoctr i ne”) ( emphasi s added)

. T her e ar e any n u m b e r o f

re a so n s w h yth e G o v e rn m e n t m ig h t ch o o se n o t to c o n tes t th is iss u e . T h u s, a lth o u g h th e G o v e rn m e n t’s f a il u re to e x p licitlyb rie f

th is iss u e m a yb e “ n o tab le,” a s th e M a jo rity s ugges t s , i ti s onl ym i l dl ys o. 63 s at i s fyt he fi r s tpr ong of the C oopers & Lybr and t es t at t hi s t i m e.64 A c c o rd in g ly , this C o u rt d o e s n o t p re se n tlyh a v e ju risd ictio n to ent er t ai n t he M edi a- I nt ervenor s ’ m ot i on. 2.
A s t o t he t hi r d pr ong of the C oopers & Lybr and t es t , t hat t he r i g h t at i s s ue be e ffe ct i vel yunr evi ew abl e upon appe al , t he M aj or i t y h o lds t hati tw oul d be “i m pos s i bl e” t o vi ndi cat e the p u b lic ’s ri g h t o f

a c c e s s to th e p ro c e e d in g s . See M a j. O p ., supra , at17. T he M aj or i t yhol ds t hat “the pot ent i al har m caus ed byan i m pr oper o rderr es t r i ct i ng t he publ i c’ s r i ghtt o acc es s t o a cr i m i nal t r i al i s notadequa t el y r edr es s abl e on appeal aft erfi nal j udgm ent , r ega rdless of the tr i al ’ s out come. ” S e e id

. As d is c u s s e d f

u rt h e r in P a rt II , i nfr a , t he M aj or i ty char act er i zes t he ri gh tati ssue i n thi s appea l t oo broadlyw hen i tsugg est s this c a se is a b o u t th e rig h t to a c c e ss th e p ro c e e d in g s in g e n e ra l. W hati s ati s s ue her e i s t he r igh t to know t he names of the prospecti ve and tri a l ju ro rs p rio r to th e tim e th e ju ry is em panel ed

. T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s D ece m ber21 O rde r al r eady g ives the M ed ia-Interve n o rs ac ce ss t o all o ther pa rt s o f th e jury s el ect i on pr oces s . Fr om t he s t andpoi ntof j ur i s di ct i on, nei t her t he M edi a- I nt er venor s nort he M aj or i t yt odayhave e xpl ai ned w hyt he publ i c’ s i nt er es t i n det erm i ni ng “the i m par t i al i t yof key par t i ci pant s in the admi ni s t r at i on of j us t i ce” w oul d be im p o ss ib le t o s at i s fyw er e al l the nam es of the pr os pect i ve and t ri al j urors no tdis cl osed u nti l aft er the tr i al i s o v e r, m u ch les s w hyw i t hhol di ng onl yt he names of the j ur or s s ervi ng i n t he tr i al w o u ld p o s e s u c h a p ro b le m . See In re G lobe N ew s paperC o. ,T he fa ctt hatt he medi a maybe bett erabl e t o r epor ton 48 tr i al p roc ee d ing s w ere theyg iven co n tem p o ran eo u s ac ce s s t o the name s o f t h e j u r o r s , a s o p p o s e d t o b e i n g g i v e n a c c e s s a tt he 65 9 2 0 F .2 d 8 8 , 9 4 (1 s t C ir . 1 9 9 0 ).
A s the S u p rem e C o u rth as n o ted , th e righ ts th at are gener al l yappea l abl e on a n i nt er l ocut or ybas i s i n cr i m i nal m at t er s ar e thos e r i ght s “the l egal and pr act i cal val ue of w hi ch w oul d be des tr oyed

if [ th e y ] w e re n o t v in d ic a te d b e f o re tr ia l.” S e e Ma cD o n a ld , 4 3 5 U .S . a t 8 6 0 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). S u c h rig h ts m us tbe s o i m p o rt ant t hatt heyw oul d be “‘ lo st, p ro b a b ly irr e p a ra b ly , ’ i f r evi ew had t o aw ai t fi nal j udgm ent
. ” See Abney v. U ni t ed Stat es , 431 U

. S. 651, 658 ( 1977) ( quot i ng C ohen , 337 U .S . a t 5 4 6 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); s ee al s o F l anagan , 465 U

. S. at 265 ( “The i m por t ance of the fi nal j u d g m en trul e has l ed the C our tt o perm i tdepartur es fr om t he rul e ‘ onl y w hen obs ervance o f itw o u ld p rac ti ca ll yd ef ea t th e righ t to an yrev iew at all

. ’”). T he mer e fa ctt hatcont empora neous di s cl os ur e of t he names of t he pr os pect i ve and tr i al j ur or s w o u ld b e more conveni entfor th e M e d ia- In ter v e n o rs d o e s n o t, by i tse lf , ele v a te th e rig h t to know and force the di s cl os ur e of the names of the pr os pect i ve and t r i al j ur or s t o s uch a l evel t hatt he r i ghtw oul d be des t r oy ed o r i rr e le v a n t a f

te r t h e tr ia l is c o m p le te
. T he i s s ue i s no t , a s t he M a j or i t yr e pe a t e dl ys ug ge s t s, aboutt he “va l ue” of

t he r i ghtt o know t he names of the pr os pect i ve and tr i al j ur or s orw hethert hatr i ghtw oul d be 48concl u sion o f t he tr i al , i s nota s uffi ci entr eas on t o s uppor tt he M a jo ri ty’s a rb itr a ry lin e . S e e U n ited S ta tes v . D o h e rty , 67 5 F. S u p p . 7 1 9 , 7 2 5 n . 7 (D

. M ass. 1 9 8 7 ) (“ T h e G lob e [ n ew sp ap er], ho w ever, adv ances the absol uti st view t hat i t has a rig h t to im m e d iate a c c e ss in o rd e r to sa tisf yth e p u b lic’s in ter e st a t a t i m e w hen i ti s focus ed on the mostdr amat i c st age of a j ur yt r i al

- t he r etur n of t he ver di ct
. W i t h r es pect , t hi s i s l i t t l e more t han a n argum ent that i tw ants t he inform at i on t o sel l m ore pap ers . W hi l e thi s i s har dl yan i gnobl e end, i tfl i es i n the fac e of the hi s t o r i c t r a d i t i o n s o f

t h e c o u r t s [ a n d ] d o e s n o t h i n g t o e n hance the ju rysy stem
. . . . ”). T h e M a jo rityq u o te s th e S e v e n th C irc u it’s d e c isio n in 49 G r ove Fr es h D is tr i bs

. , I nc. v. E ver

f r es h Jui ce Co. , 24 F. 3d 893, 897 ( 7t h C i r . 1994) , fort he pr op o sit ion thatdeny i ng c o n t e mp o r a n e o u s a c c e s s t o c o u r tr e c o r d s ma yh a ve t h e s a me e f f e c t a s a c o m p le te b a r t o a c c e s s . See M a j. O p ., supra , at18. G rove Fresh , u n li k e th e i n stan t case , inv o lved a d istri ct co u rt ’s d e c isio n to c o m p lete lyse a l a llco u rtrec o rds in the c ase b ef o re it

. S u ch a c o m p let e b ar to the m e d ia ’s a cc ess to co u rt do cum ents and proceed i ng s i s di st i ng uis hab l e from t he case befor e us , as her e the M edi a- I nt ervenor s have a cce s s t o a gr eat deal of i nfor m at i on r el at i ng t o j ur ys el ect i on. 66 “ s e ri o u s ly u n d e rm in e d .” See M a j. O p ., supra , at18. N orhas 49 t he D i s t r i ctC our t her e barr ed t he court r oom door s t o t he M edi aI nt er venor s or s eal ed tr ans cr i pt s of courtpr ocee di ngs , as w as t he s i tuat i on i n m anyof the r i ght

- of-acce s s cas es ci t ed i n t he M a jo ri ty’s o p in io n . See, e. g. , P r es s - E nt er pr is e C o. v. Super i or C ou rt of C ali fo rn ia , 4 6 4 U

. S

. 5 0 1 , 5 0 3 -04 (19 8 4 ) (“ P ress -67 E nt er pr is e I ”); G l obe N

ew s paperC o. v. Super i orC our tf or N o rfo lk C o u n ty , 4 5 7 U .S . 5 9 6 , 5 9 8 -9 9 (1 9 8 2 ); R ichm o nd N e w s p a p e rs , In c . v. V

irg in ia , 4 4 8 U

. S

. 5 5 5 , 5 5 9 -61 (19 8 0 ); A B C, Inc. v. Stew art , 3 6 0 F .3 d 9 0 , 9 3 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); U ni t ed St at es v. A nt ar , 38 F. 3d 1348, 1350- 51 ( 3d C i r . 1994)

. T he onl yques t i on under l y i ng ourabi l i t y t o exer ci s e ourj ur i s di ct i on i s w hethert he r i ghtof the publ i c t o know the nam es of the pr os pec t i ve ortr i al j ur or s w oul d be vi r t ual l y i m pos s i bl e to e x e rc ise w e re th e n a m e s d isc lo se d a f ter th e trial, a s o p p o se d to befor e i t
. T he ans w ert o t hatques t i on i s undoubte dl y“no, ” as n o th in g in th e c a s e law o r c o m m e n tar yc ited b yth e M a jo rity i ndi cat es t hatknow l edg e o f the names of pr os pect i ve ort r i al ju ro rs is o n lye f

f e c tiv e p rio r to th e b e g in n in g o f th e trial.
T he M aj or i t yr el i es i n par ton Se l l v . U ni t e d St ates and F l anagan v. U

ni t ed Stat es in h o ld in g th a t th e rig h t at iss u e in t his case i s r eview able o n an i nter l ocu t ory basi s. B oth of t hese cas es ar e di s t i ngui s habl e, how ever . I n S e ll , t h e d e fenda nt s oughti nt er l ocut or yappea l of an or derr equi r i ng t h at h e be f o rc ib l y m e d ic a te d in o rd e r t o s ta n d tr ia l. See Se l lv. U ni t ed St at es , 5 3 9 U

. S

. 1 6 6 , 1 7 1 -75 (20 0 3 ). U p o n rev iew o f this ord er, t he Supr eme Court hel d t hat w er e t he C our t t o w ai t t o revi ew Sel l ’ s appea l of the or derr equi r i ng for ci bl e admi ni s t r at i on of the a n ti-p sy c h o tic d ru g s u n til a f ter th e trial, it w o u ld b e im p o ss ib le to v in d ica te S e ll’s ri g h t to n o t b e f o rc ib ly m e d ica ted in o rd e r to s ta n d tr ia l. S e e id

. at176- 77 ( “B yt he t i m e of t r i al Sel l w i l l have u n d e rg o n e f

o rc e d m e d ica tio n – th e v e ryh a rm th a t h e se e k s to avoi d. H e ca nnotundo t hat harm even i f he i s acqui t t ed.In so h o ld in g , the C o u rt a n a lo g ize d th e rig h t at iss u e in 50 Fl a n agan to d e p riv a tio n s o f th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to couns el , w hi ch, t he C our tnot ed, i s fu l l yr evi ew abl e eve n aft er th e tr ia l. See Fl anagan , 465 U

. S. at 26 8 (ci t i ng G i deon v. W ai nw r ight , 3 7 2 U

. S

. 3 3 5 (19 6 3 )). In e ff ec t, th e M ajority ’s hol di ng t odayt hatt he M edia-Inter venor s ’ r eques tt o know t he nam es of t he p rospect i ve o r tri al ju ror s i s r eview able as a col l at er al o r ders eemi ngl ys ugges t s t hatt he r i ghtt o know t he n a m e s o f th e ju ro rs is m o re im p o rta n t an d m o re f lee tin g th a n is the d ef en d an t’ s ri g h t t o b e re p rese n ted b yco u n se l. S e e , e .g ., Sm i th- B ey v . P et

s ock , 741 F. 2d 22 , 2 6 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ( not i ng t hator der s deny i ng appoi nt ed couns el , w hetheri n ci vi l or cr i m i nal cas es , ar e onl yr evi ew abl e af t erfi nal j udgm e n th a s been en tered ). 68 I ndeed, i f he i s acqui t t ed, t her e w i l l be no appea l t hr ough w hi ch h e m igh t ob tai n rev iew

. ”). A cc o rdin g ly , the S u p rem e C o u rt h eld th at S e ll’s ap p ea l w as p erm issi b le as a n interl o cu tory m a tte r. S e e id

. at177. I n Fl anagan , t he i s s ue bef or e the Supr eme C our tw as w hetheran or derdi s qual i fy i ng t he d e f e n d a n ts ’ c o u n s e l w a s a p p e a la b le a s a c o l l a te ra l o rd e r. See F l anagan , 4 6 5 U .S

. a t 2 6 1 -6 3 . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t it w as not , as pos t
- convi ct i on r evi ew of t he al l eged de pr i vat i on of t he def endant s ’ r i ght t o choos e t hei r ow n couns el w as eff ect i ve i n ens ur i ng t hatt hei rr i ght s w er e notvi ol at ed. S e e id

. at266- 50 68

. In i t s opi ni on, t he Supr eme C our tr eci t ed the veryl i m i t ed n u m b e r o f

o rd e rs th a t ar e re v iew a b le a s in ter lo c u to rya p p e a ls in cr i m i nal cas es : an or derdeny i ng a mot i on t o r educ e bai l , an o rd er deny i ng a m oti on t o d i sm i ss an i nd i ct m ent on do u b leIn f a c t, m ostof the cases ci t ed b yt he M aj ori t yari se 51 from t he m edia’ s pos t

- tr i alc h a llen g e s to th e d e n ial o f a c c e ss to inf o rm ati o n , in clud ing tr an scripts o f p roc ee d ing s tha t w ere in itia lly c lo s e d

. See, e.g., A nt ar , 3 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 0 -5 1 ; In re G l obe N ew s paper , 92 0 F

. 2d at90

. S uch cases cl earl yest abli sh t hatt he r i ght t o acc es s can be ef fec t i vel ycont es t ed and s at i s fi ed 69 j eopar d yg r o unds , and an or derr efus i ng t o di s m i s s an i ndi ctm ent f o r v io la tio n o f

th e S p e e c h a n d D e b a te C la u s e . S e e id

. a t266; s ee al s o M a j. O p ., supra , a t 1 5 -1 6

. N ei t hert he or derati s s ue i n S e lln o r th e v a ri o u s o rde rs l i s t ed i n F l anagan as r evi ew abl e ar e s i m i l art o t he or derati s s ue i n t he i ns t antcas e. I n S e ll , once the def endantw as m edi cat ed, hi s abi l i t yt o pr os ecut e hi s appea l w as l os t , as t her e w as no r emedya courtcoul d gi ve hi m o n ce t he medi cat i on or derw as carr i ed out

. Si m i l ar l y , as t he Supr eme Court not ed i n F l anagan , on ce a dupl i ci t ous pr os ecut i on of a de fenda ntbegi ns , t he r i ght to b e p rotec ted f

rom b eing tw ice p u t i n jeop ard yis use less. In contr as t , t he M edi a- I nt ervenor s do notl os e t he ri ght t o know t he n a m e s o f

th e ju ro rs o n c e th e trial b e g in s, n o r d o e s th e p u b lic l ose t he ab i l i t yt o o bserve t he p art i ci pan t s i n the judici al process once the t r i al comm ence s . B oth r i ght s ar e eff ect i vel yenfor ced pos t
- t r i al ; t he mer e f ac t t hatknow i ng t he names of the p r o s p e c tiv e o r tria l ju ro rs e a rlier ra th e r th a n late r is p re f e ra b le do es not, byi t sel f, m ean that t he ri gh tt o g at her, use, and process th e in f o rm a tio n re q u e ste d b yth e M e d ia- In ter v e n o rs is com plete lyand i rr et ri evab l yl oston ce t he tr i al com m ences. 51pos t
- t r i al

. A ccor di ngl y , t hes e cas es d o nots uppor tt he M a jo rity ’s s u g g e stio n th a t th e D istric t C o u rt’s o r d e r is effecti velyun revi ew able po st -tri al

. F urtherm ore, no ne o f t hese cas es hel d t hatt he cl ai m s o f pos t
- t r i al acc es s w er e r ender ed m ootbyt he compl et i on of t he t r i al , t hus s ugges t i ng t hatt he r i ght is e f f e c tiv e ly r e v ie w a b le a t a tim e o th e r th a n p rio r to e m p a n e lm e n t. T h e S u p rem e C o u rth as c lassifi ed the righ ts th at are 52

“ e f f e c tiv e lyu n re v iew a b le” o n a p p e a l, a n d th e re f o re re v iew a b le o n a n in ter lo c u to ryb a sis , as th o s e th a t w o u ld b e “ p ra c tica lly d efeat [ed] ” w er e t hey not enfor ced pr e- t r i al , t hos e t hatare “im p o ssible” to v ind icate o n p o st- tr ial ap p ea l, tho se th at are
“ d e stro y e d ” b yth e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f trial, a n d th o se th a t w o u ld b e “ lo st . . . irre p a ra b ly ” o n c e th e trial c o m m e n c e s. T h is l ang uag e i nd i cat es j ustho w i m po rt ant and fleet i ng a ri gh tm ust b e in o rd e r t o q u a lif

y u n d e r t h e c o lla te ra l o rd e r d o c tr in e . See F l anagan , 465 U

. S. at265; Ma c D o n a ld , 4 3 5 U .S . at 8 6 0 ; A bney , 4 3 1 U

. S

. at 65 8

. T h e intere st i n k n o w ing the n am es o f th e juro rs and the r i ghtof the publ i c t o h av e acc es s t o and over s ee the ju d icia l p ro c e ss w o u ld n o t b e “ im p o ss ib le ” to v in d ica te p o stt r i al , as t he M aj o ri tyal l eges , norw oul d t hes e r i ght s be “des t r oy ed” by the com m ence m entof tr i al

. T heym aybe d im in ish e d in v a lu e o n c e th e trial b e g in s o r m o re c o n v e n ien t if e x e rc ise d p re -tria l, as th e M a jo ritysu g g e sts , b u t th is is i ns uffi ci ent t o w arr ant t he exer ci s e of ourj ur i s di ct i on undert he narr ow l y - cons t rued col l at er al or derdoctr i ne. 70 A c c o rd in g ly, th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r is n o t ef f e c tiv e ly u n re v iew a b le p o st-tria l. 52I f anyt hi ng, t he M aj or i t yopi ni on t odayw i l l r es ul t i n an 53 a v a lan c h e o f

a p p e a ls, a s th e m e d ia c a n n o w a rg u e th a t v irtu a lly anydi s t r i ctcour tor dert hathi nder s t hei r abi l i t yt o r epor ti n t he m annert heychoos e i s a vi ol at i on of t he Fi r s tA m endment

. Such a r es ul tw i l l notonl y undul y bur den t hi s C our tand del ayt he tr i al pr oces s , i t w i l l confl i ct w i t h t he Supr eme Court ’ s comm and that t he col l at er al or der doctr i ne i s t o be cons t rued narr ow l y . A s has p re v io u slyb e e n n o ted , w e h a v e a lre a d yh a d to d e a l w ith num er ous appea l s and mot i ons i n t hi s cas e. A s n o te d in P a rt II , in

f ra , I ca n n o t j o in the M ajority ’s 54 h o ld in g th a t th e F irst A m e n d m e n t rig h t o f p u b lic a c c e ss to 71 B eca us e the M edi a- I nt ervenor s ’ i nt er es ti n know i ng t he names of the pr os pect i ve and t r i al j ur or s i s notdes t r oy ed byt he comm ence m entof j ur ys el ect i on and the tr i al , t he M edi aI nt er venor s ’ appea l fai l s t o s at isfy the t hi r d pr ong of the C o o p ers & Lybr and t e s t , a n d we a r e t h e r e f o r e wi t hout ju risd ictio n to h e a r th is a p p e a l. 53
D.
T he M aj or i t yt odayerr s i n hol di ng t hatw e have j ur i s di ct i on o v er the M edi a- I nt ervenor s ’ appea l

. T he or der cont es t ed byt he M edi a- I nt erve n o rs i s nota fi nal or dert hat co n clus ivelyreso lves the ju ry selec ti o n issue , n o r i s the p u b li c’s ri g h t t o k n o w the n am es o f th e p rosp e c tiv e o r tri al j u rors des t r oy ed byt he comm encem en tof the tr i al

. A l t hough t he M a jo rityis c o rre c t th a t s o me rig h t o f a c c e ss c laim s a re o n ly 54cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs nece s s ar i l yi ncludes a r i ghtt o know t he nam es of the pr os pect i ve and tr i al j ur or s befor e the tr i al even beg i ns. A lth o u g h th e re a re d e c isio n s o f th is C irc u it th a t h o ld 55 t hatcert ai n r es t r i ct i ons on t he r i ght t o acc es s ar e appe al abl e as fi nal or der s , t hos e ca s es deal tw i t h com plet e cl os ur es of the p ro c e e d in g s o r a c o u rt ’s re f u s a l to u n s e a l c e rt a in re c o rd s . See, e .g ., U n itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 1 2 3 F

. 3 d 1 4 0 , 1 4 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ); A nt ar , 3 8 F

. 3 d at 1 3 5 0 -51

. T h e c ir cu m stan ce s o f th o se c ase s are u n lik e th e v e rylim ited re stric tio n o n th e m e d ia’ s a c c e ss in th is case, and t hu s w e are n ot bo un d b yt ho se di st i ng uis hab l e cases. 72 e f f e c tiv e lye n f

o rc e d c o n tem p o ra n e o u sly , the M a jo rityis i ncorr ecti n hol di ng thatt he medi a’ s i nt er es ti n know i ng t he names of pr os pect i ve or t r i al j ur or s i s r evi ew abl e as a col l at er al or derbeca us e i tcan onl ybe vi ndi cat ed pri or t o t he s el ect i on of t he j ur y . T he col l at er al or der doctr i ne i s r es erved foronl yt he

55 m os tr ar e of c i r cumst ance s , and the i s s ue rai s ed byt he M edi aInterven ors i n this case i s no t so rar e or extr aordi nary as to w a r r a n tc r e a t i n g a n e w c l a s s o f c o l l a t e r a l o r d e r s . A c c o r d i n g l y, th e M e d ia- In ter v e n o rs’ a p p e a l s h o u ld b e d e n ied f o r lac k o f

th is C our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on overt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j ur ys el ect i on o rd e r. II.
A s s um i ng ar

guendo th a t w e h a v e ju risd ictio n o v e r th is m at t eron an i nt er l ocut or ybas i s , t he M aj or i t yerr s i n hol di ng t hat73 t he Fi r s tA m endment r equi r es t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o di s cl os e the i den ti ti es of the pr os pect i ve and tr i al j ur or s t o t he M edi aIn ter v e n o rs p rio r to th e e m p a n e lm e n t o f th e trial ju ry . It is w e lles t abl i s hed that t he Fi r s tA m endmentpr ot ect s t he r i ghtof the publ i c, and the medi a as i ts pr oxy , t o have a cce s s t o cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs and t o gatheri nfor m at i on. See R ic hm ond N e w sp a p e rs , In c . v. V

irg in ia , 4 4 8 U. S

. 5 5 5 , 5 7 6

- 7 7 ( 1 9 8 0 )

. As th e M a jo rityc o rre c tly n o tes , th is righ t p ro tec ts pu b lic a n d m e d ia acc es s t o num er ous fac et s of th e tr ial pr oces s , i ncl udi ng v o ir dir e . See M a

j. O p ., supra , at28 ( ci t i ng P r es s - E nt er pr is e I, 464 U

. S. at508)

. T h e q u es t i on pr es ent ed i n t hi s appea l i s not w hethert he m edia has a ri gh tof ac cess t o D r. W echt’ s voirdir e p r o c e e d i n g s , h o we v e r . T h e q u e s t i o n i s f a rmo r e n a r r o w: w h e th e r th e F irst A m e n d m e n t rig h t o f a c c e ss n e c e ss a rily i ncl udes a cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o know t he names of pr os pect i ve and tr i al j ur or s pr i ort o t he empanel m entof the tr i al j ur y . T he M a jori t y con cl ud es t hat t he r i gh t of access i ncludes a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to k n o w th e id e n tit ies o f a ll j u ro rs, w h ich in tu r n r e q u i r e s d i s c l o s u r e b y t h e Di s t r i c t Cou r t b e f o r e t he t r i al b e g in s . T h e M a jo rityis in c o rre c t th a t “a c c e ss ” n e c e ss a rily i ncludes t he id enti t i es of t he p rospect i ve an d tr i al j urors . A d d it ion all y , the F ir st A m en d m en t do es n o t r eq u ir e d iscl o su re of the names t o t he medi a pr i or t o t he empanel m ent of the tr i al ju ry. A.74 T he M aj or i t y empl oy s t he “exper i ence and l ogi c” t es ts et for th i n P re ss -E n ter

p ris e C o . v. S u

p e ri o r C o u rt o

f C a lif o rn ia , 478 U

. S. 1, 8- 9 ( 1986) (“ P r e s s -E n terp rise II ”) , t o det erm i ne w hethert he M edi a- I nt erv en o rs ar e ent i t l ed, as a mat t erof co n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t , t o f o r c e t h e Di s t r i c t Cou r t t o d i v ul ge t he names of the pr os pec ti ve and tr i al j ur or s pr i ort o t he e m p a n e lm e n t o f th e trial j u ry . T h e M a jo ri ty i n c o rre c tly concl udes t hat thi s t w o- pr ong t es tr equi r es di s cl os ur e, as t he P ress -E n terp rise II

tes t d o e s n o t y ield su c h a n e n tit lem e n t.

1.
T he fi rs tpar tof the P ress -E n terp rise II t es t , t he “expe r i ence ” pr ong, r eq u i r es an exa m i nat i on of “w hethert he place an d p rocess have hi s t or i cal l ybeen ope n t o t he pr es s and gener al publ i c. ” S e e P ress -E n terp rise II, 4 7 8 U .S . at 8 ( emphasi s ad d ed ). A ccor di ng t o t he M aj or i t y , t he publ i c has his t ori cal l yhad a ri gh tt o k no w t he n am es of p rospect i ve jur ors. I n s u p p o r to f

t h i s c o n c l u s i o n , t h e M a j o r i t yc i t e s t h e S u p r e me C our t ’s h ist or i cal anal y s i s i n P r es s - E nt er pr is e I, i n w hi ch the C our t n o t ed that“s i nce the deve l opm entof tr i al byj ur y , t he p ro c e ss of sel ect i on of jur ors has pres um pti velybeen a pu b lic pr oces s w i t h exce pt i ons onl yforgood caus e s how n . ” P ress E nt er pr is e I, 4 6 4 U .S

. a t 5 0 5 -0 8 . A lth o u g h th e M a jo rity acknow l edges t hatt he P ress -En t erprise I opi ni on m ent i ons n o thing ab o u t w h ethe r th e iden ti ti es o f p rosp ec ti v e juro rs w ere hi s t or i cal l yavai l abl e t o t he publ i c, and al t hough P ress E nter prise I deal s onl yw i t h t he co mp let e clos ur e of voirdir eT he M aj or i t yw i selynot es t hati ti s “r el uct antt o dr aw 56 concl us i ons s ol el ybas ed on t he [Supr eme] C our t ’ s s i l ence about a ques t i on t hatw as n o t b efor e i t
. ” See M aj

. O p. , supra , at32. A ccor di ng ly , the M aj or i t yr efus es t o i nfert hata tr adi t i on of opennes s exi sted

. I tt hen thr ow s t hatcaut i on t o t he w i nd and h o ld s th a t, b a se d o n th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s g e n e ra l sta tem e n ts about t he publ i c natur e of the voirdir e pr oces s , none of w hi ch ad d resse s the issue o f w h ethe r th e ide n titie s o f ju rors w ere k n o w n to th e p u b lic, th e n a m e s o f ju ro rs w e re h isto ric a lly k n o w n to th e g e n e ra l p u b lic

. S e e id at32- 33. 75 pr ocee di ngs , t he M aj or i t ynonethel es s i nfer s t hatt he P ress E nt er pr is e I h ist o ri ca l an aly sis su g g ests that the n am es o f ju rors w e re a lso k n o w n to th e p u b lic. T h e M a jo rity re a c h e s th is c ritica l co n c lu sio n d e sp ite the S u p re m e C o u rt’s s ilen c e o n th is i m port ant ques t i on and bas ed s ol el yon t he as s um pt i on t hat 56 beca us e voirdir e w as t r adi t i onal l y open t o t he publ i c, the names o f ju rors m u st al so h av e b ee n co m m o n k n o w le d g e . See M a j. O p ., supra , a t3 2

- 3 3

. F o r t h i s r e a s o n , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e M a j o r i t y, t he M edia- Int erveno rs can f orce t he D i stri ctC ou rtt o d i scl ose t he names of the pr os pect i ve and tr i al j ur or s b ef o re t he tr i al beg i ns.A rev iew o f th e c ase law , legis lation , an d loca l cou rt pr ocedur es of the court s i n ourC i r cui tan d thatof a va r i etyof ot herj ur i s di ct i ons r evea l s t hatt he “r i ght ” t o know t he nam es of the jur or s i s not , as t he M aj or i t y s ugges t s , cl ear l y defi ned. If an y thing , a m o re tho rou g h rev iew o f h ist o ri ca l an d m o d ern juryI n Sh epp ard , t he Supr em e C o ur tadmoni s hed the tr i al 57 cour t for not pr ot ect i ng t he r i ght s of the def endantbyi ns ul at i ng t he j ur yfr om pr ej udi ci al publ i ci t y . T he Supr eme C our tnot ed t he tr emendous bur den pl ace d on t he part i ci pant s of t he t r i al by th e e x te n s iv e m e d ia c o v e ra g e . See Shep pa rd , 384 U

. S. at342- 45. T he C our tpoi nt ed outt hatal t hough “[t]he p res s does not s i m pl ypubl i s h i nfor m at i on abouttr i al s butguard s agai ns tt he m i s carr i age of j us t i ce by s ubj ect i ng t he pol i ce, pr os ecut or s , and ju d ic ia l p ro c e s s e s to e x te n s iv e p u b li c s c ru tin ya n d c ri tic is m ,” s om e l i m i t s coul d be pl ace d on t he m edi a t o ens ur e thatt he tr i al p ro c e s s p ro c e e d s f

a ir ly. Id

. at 3 4 9 -51

. In h o lding that the ju ry m ay have be en unfa i r l yi nfl uence d byt he medi a cove r age, t he S u p re m e C o u rt n o ted th a t th e ju r o rs “ w e re su b jec ted to new s paper , r adi o and t el evi s i on cover age of t he tr i al w hi l e not t aki ng par ti n t he pr ocee di ngs . ” Id

. at 35 3

. T h e C o u rt emphasi zed thatal l of t he names and addr es s es of the veni r emen w ere p u b li sh ed in the n ew sp ap ers, an d that “a n o n ym o u s let ters and t el ephone c al l s , as w el l as cal l s fr om fr i ends , r egar di ng t he i m pendi ng pr o s ecut i on w er e r ece i ved byal l of the pr os pect i ve 76 pr act i ces s ugges t s t hatt he “e xper i ence ” i s one of gi vi ng di scre ti o n t o di s t r i ctj udges overt he conduc tof voirdir e , i ncl udi ng t he di s cr et i onaryabi l i t yt o w i t hhol d t he names of p ro s p e c tiv e a n d tr ia l ju ro rs . i.
In 1 9 6 8 , fo llo w in g th e S u p re m e C o u rt ’ s d e c isio n in Sh e p p a rdv . M

a x w e ll , 384 U

. S

. 333 ( 1966) , C ongr es s pas s ed 57j ur or s . ” Id

. at342. T h e C our tal s o not ed thatpi ctur es of the prospecti ve jur ors appeared i n the n ew spaper du ri ng t he co urse o f ju ry se le c tio n . S e e id

. at343. 77 a l aw addr es s i ng t he conce r ns r ai s ed by t he Supr eme C o u rt a b o u t th e p e rv a siv e n a tu re o f m o d e rn m e d ia c o v e r a g e a n d its e f f e c t o n th e ju d ic ia l p ro c e s s . T h e la w , c o d if ie d a t 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 8 6 3 ( b ) ( 7 ) , p e r mi t s t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t s t o d e v e l o p t h e i ro wn in d iv id u a l ju ry se le c tio n p la n s . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 8 6 3 (b )(7 ); s ee al s o 28 U

. S. C

. § 18 6 7 (f) ( per m i t t i ng cour t s t o w i t hhol d t he c o n ten ts o f

re c o rd s re latin g to ju r y s e lec tio n ). T h e se p lan s, if t he di s t r i ctcour t s so ch oos e, m ayper m i tt he i ndi vi dual j udges t o keep t he nam es o f prospecti ve and t ri al j urors “ c o n fide n tia l in an y c as e wher e the i nt e r e s t s of j us t i c e s o r e qui re . ” See 28 U

. S

. C

. § 1 8 6 3 (b)(7 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e legislat ive h ist o ry o f th e sta tu te e x p la in s th a t th e sta tu te w a s in ten d e d to p e rm it “the pr es entdi ver s i t yof pr act i ce a r ound t he nat i on t o cont i nue. Som e di s t r i ctcour t s keep j ur ornames c onfi dent i al forfea rof j ur ytam p er i ng. O t herdi s t r i ctcour t s r out i nel ypubl i ci ze the names. ” S e e In r e G lo b e N e w s p a p e r, 920 F. 2d at92 ( quot i ng H .R

. R e p . N o . 1 0 7 6 , 9 0 th C o n g ., 2 d S e s s ., r epr i nt ed i n 1968 U .S .C .C .A .N . 1 7 9 2 , 1 8 0 1 )). N o t o n ly d o e s th is s tatu te in d ica te t h a t t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e l a s t 4 0 y e a r s s u p p o r t s g i vi ng t he dis t ri ctcou rt s greatdis cret i on i n det erm i ning w hethert o rel ease t he names of j ur or s , i t al s o s ugges t s t hat t her e w as a s i gni fi cant am o untof s uch di s cr et i on p rio r to 1 9 6 8 , w h ich th e sta tu te at t empt ed t o codi fyand pr es erve. D es pi t e i t s r eco g ni t i on t hat th is stat ute i s strong ev i den ce t hat no t radi t i on of o pen ness78 exi s t ed, the M aj or i t ybrus hes as i de the s t atut e, and w i t h i tt he i nfor m ed j udgm entof C ongr es s , s ugges t i ng t hati ts houl d notbe gi ven s i gnifi ca n tw ei ghti n det erm i ni ng w hethert her e i s an h is to ri c a l r ig h t to k n o w th e n a m e s o f th e ju ro rs . See M a

j. O p ., supra , at36- 37.
T he j ur ys el ecti o n pr ocedur es empl oy ed byvar i ous j ur i s d ic t i ons i n i m pl ement i ng 28 U

. S. C

. § 1863( b) ( 7) fur t her under cutt he M aj or i t y ’ s ar g u m entt hatt he “e xper i ence ” pr ong su p p o rt s a d eterm ination that the n am es o f ju rors w ere h isto ric a llya v a ilab le to th e m e d ia a s a m a tter o f rig h t. F o ll ow i ng the pas s age of 28 U

. S. C

. § 1863( b) ( 7) , num er ous ju risd ictio n s a c ro ss th e c o u n tryim p lem e n te d , a n d c o n tin u e to e m ploy , j ury sel ect i on plans t hat perm i t i nd i vidual j ud ges to k e e p th e n a m e s o f

ju ro rs c o n f

id e n tia l. See, e. g. , D. A r i z . L. R. Cr i m. P

. 5 7

. 2 ( f

) ( 5 ) ; D. La

. L. Cr i m. R. 5 3

. 1 0 ( E) ; D. M i n n . L. R. 8 3

. 2 ( c ) ( 5 ) ; D. N. D. L

. R

. 7 7

. 3 ( E ) ( 5 ) ; N. D. Ok l a . L

. C r i m. R. 5 7

. 3 ( A) ( 5 ) ; D. P

. R. L. Ci v . R. 8 3

. 7 ( g ) ( 5 ) ; W

. D. W a s h

. L. Cr i m. R

. 53( c) ( 5)

. M os tof the di s tr ict cour t s i n ourC i r cui thave d e v e lo p e d a n d c o n tin u e to e m p lo ys im ila r p la n s . See U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our t fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, J u ry S e le c tio n Im p le m e n ta tio n P la n , a t ¶ 9 (a ), r epr i nt ed i n Pet er F. Vai r a , Ea s t e rn D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a Feder al Pr act i ce Rul es A nnot at ed 653 ( 2003) ; J ur orSel ect ion Pl an, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Pennsy lvani a §§ 503, 904, ht tp: // w w w . pamd. us cour t s . gov/ s t ando/ 89- 69. pdf ( r evi s ed A u g . 5 , 1 9 9 9 ); I

n r e Jur y Adm i nis tr at i on P r ocedur es , M i s c. 06- 2 1 1 (W . D . P a . J u ly 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 ) ,79 ht t p: / / w w w . pa. w d. usco u rt s. g o v /D ocument s / For m s / j ur y _06- 211. pdf ( J ul y13, 2006) ; R evi s ed J ur yPl an of the U ni t ed St at es D istr i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof D el aw ar e fort he R andom S el ect i on of G rand and Petit Jurors , at ¶ 8, ht tp: // w w w . ded. us cour t s . gov/ j ur y/ j ur ypl an. pdf (am en d ed A p r. 10, 2002) ; Pl an of I m pl ement at i on of t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C o u rtfo r th e D istri ct of N ew Jerse yP u rs u an t t o the J u ry S e le c tio n a n d S e rv ic e A c t o f 1 9 6 8 , at ¶ I, ht tp: // w w w . n

jd.usc o u rt s. g o v /j u ry/ J U R Y

- PL A N

- FI N A L

- 1- 31- 0 3 -ap p rv.pd f (rev ised N o v em b er 1 , 2 0 0 2 ).
ii.
In a d d iti o n to th e p la n s d e v e lo p e d b yth e c o u rts in th is C i r c u it a n d th o s e o f o th e r ju ri s d ic tio n s , a ll o f w h ic h c o d if y a pr act i ce of g ivi ng t he tr i al cour tj udge di s cr et i on w hetherand w hen t o r el eas e the names of pr os pect i v e an d t r i al j ur or s , t he J udi ci al C onfer ence o f the U ni t ed St at es has s tudi ed and r epor t ed on the iss ue of how t o pr ot ectt r i al s fr om undue i nfl uence and har as s m entbym edia c over age. I n 1968, fol l ow i ng “appr oxi m at ely t w o y ear s of del i ber at i on and r es ear ch” byvar i ous co m m i t t ees and s ubcomm i t t ees of the J udi ci al C onfer ence on “the ne ces s i t yof pr om ul gat i ng gui del i nes ort aki ng ot hercorr ec ti v e ac t i on t o s hi el d fede r al j u r i e s f r o m p r e j u d i c i a l p u b l i c i t y , ” t h e Commi t t e e on t he O p era ti o n o f th e Ju ry S y stem (“C o m m ittee” ) re lease d it s rep o rt a n d f in d in g s . See R epor tof t he C om m i t t ee on the O per at i on of th e J u ry S y s te m o n th e “ F re e P re s s -F a irT ri a l” Is s u e , r epr i nt edT he ch ai rm an o f t he sub com m itt ee t hat s tud i ed these 58 i s s ues w as T hi r d C i r cui tC hi ef J udge C ol l i ns J

. Sei t z. 80 i n 4 5 F .R .D . 3 9 1 , 3 9 2 ( 1 9 6 8 ) (“ 1 9 6 8 R e p o rt” ). In th a t re p o rt, t he Commi t t e e n o t e d t h a twi t h r e g a r d t o t h e me d i a , “ i ti s c l ear t hatt he courthas t he pow erand the duty t o r egul at e t he conduc t of a t r i a l s o a s t o i n s u l a t e t h e p r o c e e d i n g s f r o m pr e j u d i ci al i nfl uence s . ” Id

. at401. T he C om m i t t ee r ecomm ended thateac h D i s t r i ctC our tadopta rul e pr ovi di ng fors peci al m eas ur es t o be t aken i n cas es l i kel yt o r ece i ve s i gni fi cantm edi a att en ti on, inclu d ing a “ [d ]i rec tio n that the n am es a n d ad d resse s o f ju rors orpr os pect i ve j ur or s notbe publ i cl y r el eas ed except as r equi r ed bys t atut e. ” Id

. at 410- 11. T he C om m i t t ee not ed t hat an s uch an or der w oul d be cons i s t entw i t h t he “tr adi t i onal ” pr act i ces of c o n tr o llin g p o te n tia lly p re ju d ic ia l p u b lic ity. S e e id

. at412- 13.
I n 19 7 6, t he J udi ci al C onfer ence author i zed the C om m i t t ee t o r evi ew t he 1968 Fr ee Pr es s - Fai rT r i al G ui del i nes a n d d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a n y a m e n d m e n t s w e r e n e c e s s a r y. See 58 R evi s ed R epor tof the J udi ci al C onfer ence C om m i t t ee on t he O p e ra tio n o f th e Ju ry S y ste m o n th e “ F re e P re ss -F a ir T r ial” Is s u e , re p rin tedin 8 7 F .R .D

. 5 1 9 (1 9 8 0 ). S e v e ra l y e a rs la ter , in i t s 1980 r epor t , t he C om m i t t ee r eaf fi r m ed i t s s uppor tforgi vi ng d istric t co u rts th e f

re e d o m to d e v e lo p sp e c ial o rd e rs r e latin g to t h e c o n d u c t o f

ju ry tria ls

. S e e id

. a t5 2 9

- 3 0

. Th e Commi t t ee m a in tain e d th e sa m e lan g u a g e c o n c e rn in g su c h o rd e rs a s tha t in the 19 6 8 G u id e lin e s . S e e id

. A s w as t he ca s e i n 1968, t he C om m i t t ee a gai n not ed the abi l i t y of t he di s t r i ct cour t s t o i s s ueT he C om m i t t ee’ s r ecomm endat i ons ar e al s o di s cus s ed 59 i n E dw ar d D evi t t , etal

. , 1 Feder alJur y Pract i ce and I ns tr uct i ons : C i vi land C r i m i nal§ 4

. 0 5 (4th ed

. 1 9 9 2 ). 81 o rde rs d ir ec ti n g that the i d en ti ti es o f p rosp ec ti v e a n d tr ial juro rs n o t b e re le a s e d

. S e e id

. at529- 31. A ddi t i onal l y , t he C om m i t t ee r ecomm ended thatdi s t r i ct cour t s “make m or e ext ens i ve us e of exi s t i ng t echni ques des i gned t o ens ur e an i m par t i al j ur y , ” w hi ch i ncluded w i t hh oldi ng t he n am es of p rospect i ve an d tr i al j urors . 59 Id

. at533- 35.
iii

. V ar i ous deci s i ons of court s fr om a var i etyof j u r i s d i c t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g m a n y o f t h e c a s e s c i t e d b y t h e M a j o r i t y, have al s o s ugges t ed t hat keepi ng t he nam es of pr os pect i ve and trial ju ro rs c o n f

id e n tial is a v iab le o p tio n f o r d e a lin g w ith p o te n tia lly p re

ju d ic ia l m e d ia e x p o s u r e . See, e. g. , P ress E nt er pr is e I, 464 U

. S. at512 ( “Even t hen a va l i d pr i vacyr i ght m ay r i s e t o a l evel t hatpar tof the tr ans cr i pt[of the v oi r di re p ro c e e d in g s ] s h o u ld b e s e a le d , o r the n a m e o f a ju ro r w ith h e ld , to p rotec t th e p erso n fro m em b arrassm en t. ”) (em p h asis ad d ed ); Stew art , 3 6 0 F .3 d a t 1 0 4 -0 5 (“ F irst, w e d o n o t se e w h ysim p ly conce al i ng t he i dent i t i es of the pr os pect i ve j urors w oul d not h a v e b e e n su f

f icie n t. .
. . H e re , p a rtial c lo su re w a s a n a v a ilab le and an e ffe ct i ve means of ens ur i ng t he ca ndorof pr osp ect i ve ju ro rs.” ); G an nett C o. , Inc. v. Stat e of D el aw are , 571 A

. 2d 735, 7 5 1 (D e l. 19 8 9 ); s ee al

s o H am erv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 259 F. 2d 27482 ( 9t h C i r . 1958) ( uphol di ng t r i al cour t ’ s r efusal to rel eas e the names of j ur or s t o any one, i ncl udi ng t he def endant , agai ns tt he defe ndant ’ s Si x th Am e n d me n tc hal l enge)

. M or eover , num er ous cour t s have us ed o r u p h eld the us e of a nonym ous j ur i es or ano ny m ou s voirdir e i n cas es w her e medi a expos ur e orot her p re ju d ic ia l in f

lu e n c e s m ig h t b e a p ro b le m . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Br o wn , 250 F. 3d 907, 916- 17 ( 5t h C i r . 2001) ( uphol di ng r efus al t o gr antpos t
- t r i al acc es s t o j ur ori dent it i es and not i ng t hatan ano ny m ou s j uryi s prefer able t o sequ estrat i on becau se “[ a]n o n ym ityp rotec ts, in ad d it ion to the juro rs , the v en ir e per s ons and the j ur or s’ fa m i l i es fr om i nfl uence exert ed by o u tsi d e p arti es” ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. B r anch , 9 1 F .3 d 6 9 9 , 7 2 4 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. W

ong , 4 0 F

. 3 d 1 3 4 7 , 1 3 7 7 (2d C ir

. 1994) ( not i ng t hatt he “pr os pectof publ i ci t ym i l i t at es i n favorof j ur yanonym i t yt o pr eventexpos ur e of t he j ur or s t o i nt i m i dat i on o r h a ra ss m e n t”) ; U

nited S t ates v. S c a rfo , 850 F. 2d 1015, 1023 ( 3d C i r . 19 8 8 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. B l ack , 483 F. Supp. 2d 618, 623- 26 ( N

. D

. I l l

. 2007) ( r efus i ng t o r el eas e names of empanel ed juro rs t o the m ed ia); U

n itedS ta tes v . D o h e rty , 675 F. Supp. 719 ( D

. M as s . 1987) ( r el eas i ng names and addr es s es of j ur or s s even day s aft er the co nclusi on of the t ri al ). C ou rt s have a l so s ugges t ed t hat the medi a’ s r eques tt o know t he i dent i t i es of the p ro sp e c tiv e a n d trial ju ro rs c a n b e a d e q u a tely sa tisf ied b yp o stt r i al r el eas e of t he tr ans cr i pt s of the voirdir e pr ocee di ngs , t hus s u g g e s tin g p re -t ri a l d i s c lo s u re is n o t m a n d a to ry. S e e , e .g ., P r es s - E nt er

pr is e I, 4 6 4 U .S . at 5 1 2 ( “ W h e n lim ited c lo su re is or der ed, t he cons t i tut i onal val ues so u g h t t o be pr ot ect ed by hol di ng open pr ocee di ngs m aybe s at i s fi ed l at erbym aki ng aI n par t i cul ar , i ti s w or th not i ng t hat at t he or i gi n of the 60 j ur ys y s t em, j ur or s w er e s el ect ed bas ed on thei rknow l edge of th e p a rties , th e ir p rio r kn o w led g e o f th e f a c ts of th e c a se , o r th e ir a f f ilia tio n w ith o n e o f th e p a rt ie s . S e e , e .g ., V al er i e P. H ans and N ei l V i dm ar , J udgi n g the J ur y21- 44 ( 1986) ( di s cus s i ng t he evol ut i on of the moder n A m er i can juryand not i ng t hat“our pr es entconce pt i on of j us t i ce a nd t he role and func t i ons of the j ur yhave s harpl ychange d overt he ce ntur i es ”) ; Paul a D i Per na, J ur i es on T r i al : Faces of A m er i can J us t i ce 21- 98 ( 1984) ( di s cus s ing the evol ut i on of the j ur ys y s t em and t he voirdir e p r o c e s s )

. I n a d d i t i o n , d u r i n g t h e e a r l y d a y s o f t h e j u r ys y s t e m, j ur o rs w ere s el ect ed fr om a much smal l erar ea a nd s ubs etof so ciety

. T h e ch an g es o f the co m p o sit ion an d p u rpo se o f the ju ry sy ste m su g g e st th a t m o re re c e n t e x p e rie n c e is f a r m o re v a lu a b le i n eval uat i ng t he r ol e of the publ i c i n t he j udi ci al p roc es s t han i s ear l i erexper i ence . 83 t r ans cr i ptof the cl os ed pr o ce edi ngs avai l abl e w i thi n a r e a s o n a b l e t i me , i f t h e j u d g e d e t e r mi n e s t h a t d i s c l o s u r e c a n be acc om pl i s hed w hi l e s afe guar di ng t he j ur or ’ s val id pr i vacy in ter e sts .”); I

n r e G l ob e New s

paper , 920 F. 2d at91- 93, 98 ( perm i t t i ng j ur ori dent i t i es to b e w i t hhel d pr i ort o t r i al but o rd e rin g p o st-tria l re lea se in lig h t o f d istric t co u rt’s f

a il u re to ad eq u atelyjusti fyd ec isi o n to w ith h o ld).
i v. T he natur e of tr i al pr act i ce ha s u n d o u bt edl ychange d over the last fe w d ec ad es, l et alon e the lastm il len n ium

. In 6084 par t i cular , t he pr es ence of the medi a, and i t s i ncr eas ed r ol e as t he s ur r ogat e of the publ i c’ s i nt er es t in e ns ur i ng t he j us t i ce s y s t em func ti o n s i n a fa i rand ef fec t i ve w ay , has pr es ent ed cour t s w i t h new ch all en ges as theyat t empt t o bal ance t he i nt er es t s of the medi a, t he publ i c, t he def endant , t he G o v e rn m e n t, th e ju ry, a n d th e c o u rt s . See Shep pa rd , 38 4 U. S. at 36 2 (discu ssing the “ p erv asiv en ess” o f th e m o d ern m ed ia). G i ven the i ncr eas ed m ed i a pr es ence and r ol e i n j udi ci al pr oce ed ing s, the c o ll ec ti v e e x p erien ce o f c o u rt s o v er the lastfew d ec ad es in m an ag ing h igh -pro fil e tri als i s arg u ab lym o re r el evant than i s t he ea r l ydevel opm entof the j ur ys y s t em on w h ich th e M ajorityb ase s it s h o lding th at j u rors n am es w ere k n o w n to th e p u b lic as a m a tter o f e x p e rie n c e . T h e M a jo rity e ith e r m a rg in a lize s o r c o m p lete lyig n o re s re c e n t d e v e lo p m e n ts i n the l aw and recentdecis i on s that codi fyexis t i ng pract i c e s, and much of t he evi dence t he M aj or i t y i gnor es i ndi cat es t hatt he rig h t t o f o rc e d isc lo su re o f

th e n a m e s o f

ju ro rs is n o t ro o ted in ei t herhi s t or y orpr act i ce. T he M aj or i t y ’ s concl us or ys t at ement that juro rs’ n am es w ere k n o w n to the p u b li c thro u g h o u t hist o ry i s fur t herunder cutbyt he s t at ement s of C o n g res s and the J udi ci al C onfer ence of the U ni t ed St at es . T hes e bodi es , aft er cons i der abl e r evi ew of tr i al cour tpr act i ces as t heyhave devel oped overt he cour s e of hi s t or y , came t o t he conc l us i on th a t itis p e rm iss ib le f

o r th e in d iv id u a l d istric t co u rts to w ith h o ld t he n ames of pr os pect i ve and tr i al j ur or s . T he fa ctt hat n u me r o u s d i s t r i c tc o u r t s a n d s t a t e c o u r t s , e x e r c i s i n g t h e i ro wn i ndi vi dual j udgm ent i n l i ght of t he chal l enges t hei r j udges fac e, perm i tt he names of j ur or s t o be w i t hhel d i s s t r ong addi t i onalPr es um abl y , t he M aj or i t yw oul d have us bel i eve that28 61 U

. S. C

. §§ 1863( b) ( 7) and 1867(f ) ar e ar guabl yuncons t i tut i onal t o t he ext entt heyr es t r i ctt he medi a’ s r i ghtt o know t he names of t he j ur or s i n al l butt he mostunus ual of ca s es . Fur t her m or e, t he M aj or i t y ’ s hol di ng cal l s i nt o ques t i on t he pr act i ces of num er ous fede r a l a n d s t a t e c o u r t s wi t h r e g a r d t o j u r ys e l e c t i o n a nd s ugges t s t hatal l of thos e court s , i ncl udi n g m an y of the di s t r i ct cour t s i n t hi s j ur i s di ct i on, ar e act i ng i n contr avent i on of t he C ons t i tut i on. In i t s di scu ss io n o f

th e “ e x p e rie n c e ” p ro n g , the M a jo rity 62 ci t es t he hi s t or i cal anal y s es i n P r es s - E nt er pr is e I and In re B al t i m or e Sun C o. , 841 F. 2d 74, 75 ( 4t h C i r . 1998)

. A l t hough thes e c a s es b eg in the irex am ination o f th e h ist o ryo f th e jury sy ste m in th e d a y s “ b e f o re th e N o rm a n c o n q u e s t,” n o th in g in ei t hercas e ori n P ress -E n terp rise II expl i cit l ys uppor t s t he M aj or i t y ’ s s ugges t i on t hatt he w hol e mi l l enni u m ’ s w or t h of exper i ence m us tbe cons i der ed. E ven i f t he w hol e mi l l enni um is c o n sid e re d , itm a k e s s e n se to c o n sid e r th e rig h t in q u e stio n in co n text; th u s, q u esti o n s ab o u t m e d ia ac ce ss to tri als are m o re p roperl yexam i ned i n li gh tof recent hi st ory , w hen t he m e d ia 85 evide n ce t hatt he “r i ght ” the M aj or i tyannounce s t odayi s not f irm lyro o ted in h is to r y o r th e c o llec tiv e e x p e rie n c e o f th is nati on ’s cou rt s. 61
D es pi t e i ts a d m oni t i on t hatanyanal y s i s of the “expe r i ence ” pron g of P ress -E n terp rise II m u st n e c e ss a rily i nclude t he ex peri ence a s i thas dev el op ed o ver the las t m il lenn ium , the M ajority large ly ign o res the lasth alf-ce n tury

62beca m e much m or e pervas i ve. 86 o f t h i s m i l l e n n i u m . T h e e x p e r i e n c e o v e rt h e p a s th a l f

- c e n tu r y, in the co n text o f m ed ia ou tl ets t h at ga ther inf o rm ati o n an d rep o rt t w enty - fourhour s a day , sev en day s a w eek, has l ar gel ybeen one of gr an ti n g inc r eas ed di s cr et i on t o di s t r i ctcour t s i n t he m anage m entof thei rt r i al pr ocedur es , notone of f or ci ng compl et e openne s s . I bel i eve thatt he court s ’ col l ect i ve e x p e rie n c e o v e r th e las t h a lf -c e n tu ryis h ig h ly per s uas i ve, es peci al l yi n l i ght of t he i ncr eas ed pre s ence of t he m edi a and the f a c ts o f th is c a se . T h is e x p e rie n c e is n o t, as th e M a jo rity s u g g e s t s , s o m e h o w l e s s p e r s u a s i v e . A c c o r d i n g l y, a p r o p e r l yc o n d u c ted a n a ly sis o f th e “ e x p e rie n c e ” p ro n g d o e s n o t re su lt i n a fi ndi ng t hatt he names of j ur or s w er e hi s t or i cal l y know n t o t he p u b lic, a n d b ye x ten sio n th e m e d ia, a s a m a tter o f rig h t.
2.
T he “l ogi c” pr ong of the P ress -E n terp rise II t es tr equi r es cour t s t o eval uat e w hether“publ i c ac ces s pl ay s a s i gni fi cant p o sitiv e ro le in th e f

u n c tio n in g o f th e p a rticu lar p ro c e ss in ques t i on. ” P ress -E n terp rise II, 4 7 8 U .S . at 8

. T h e M a jo rity h o lds tha t l o g ic dictates tha t kn o w ing the n a m e s o f th e juro rs pr i ort o empanel m entof t h e t r i al j ur y“pl ay s a s i gni fi cant p o s i t i v e r o l e i n t h e f

u n c t i o n i n g ” o f t h e c r i mi n a l j u s t i c e s y s t e m. See M a j. O p ., supra , at 38. A ccor di ngl y , t he M aj or i t yhol ds , t he D i s t r i ctC our tm us t di s cl os e the names of the pr os pect i ve and t r i al j ur o r s p r i o rt o t h e e mpa n e l me n to f t h e j u r ya s a ma t t e rof87 cons t i tut i onal r i ght

. T he l ogi cal cons i der at i ons under l y i ng t he rig h t o f a c c e ss d o n o t re q u ire , a s a m a tter o f c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t, th e p re -e m p a n e lm e n t d is c lo s u re o f th e ju ro rs ’ n a m e s . T he purpos e of the “l ogi c” pr ong i s t o det erm i ne w hether “the hi s t or i cal pr act i ce pl ay [s ] ‘ an e ssent i al r ol e’ i n t he pr oper funct i oni ng of governm ent
. . . s i nce ot herw i s e t he mostt r i vi al a n d u n im p o rta n t h isto ric a l p ra c tice s . . . w o u ld b e c h ise lled in cons t i tut i onal s t one. ” See I n r e R epor t ers C om m . f orFr eedom of the P ress , 773 F. 2d 1325, 1332 ( D

. C

. C i r . 1985)

. I ndeed, not everyhi s t or i cal pr act i ce that pl ay s a posi t i ve rol e i n t he j udi ci al p r o c e s s i s c o n s i d e r e d a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t
. As t h e S u p r e me C ou rthas no t ed, t he logi c t estal l ow s co u rts t o “d i st i ng uis h b e tw e e n w h a t th e C o n s titu tio n p e rm its a n d w h a t it r e q u ir e s .” G a n n e tt C o ., In c . v . D e P a sq u a le , 443 U

. S. 368, 385 ( 1979)

. Put anotherw ay , t he ques t i on i s w hetherannounci ng t he names of t he j ur or s pr i ort o empanel m enti s s i gni fi cant l yi m por t ant t o t he p u b lic’s a b ili tyto o v e rse e th e ju ryse lec tio n p ro c e ss a n d to e n s u re th e ju d ic ia l syste m f u n c tio n s f

a ir ly a n d e f

f e c tiv e ly. See als o I n re R epo rt ers , 77 2 F

. 2d at 13 32 (not i ng t hat t he p rocess in q u esti o n m u st play“a n esse n ti al role” ).
I n det erm i ni ng w hethera cl ai m o f acce s s s at i s fi es t he

“ lo g ic” tes t, th is C o u rt h a s s e t f o rth a n u m b e r o f

f a c to rs to c o n sid e r. T h e se f

a c to rs in c lu d e : [P] r om ot i on of infor m ed di s cus s i on of g o v e rn m e n tal a f

f a irs b y p ro v id in g th e p u b lic w ith88 t he more compl et e under s t andi n g of the j udi ci al s y s t em; pr om ot i on o f t he publ i c per cept i on of fai rnes s w hi ch ca n be ac hi eved onl ybyper m i t t i ng ful l pub li c vi ew of the pr ocee di ngs ; pr ovi di ng a s i gni fi cantcomm uni t yt her apeut i c val ue as an out l etforcomm uni t yconce r n, hos t i l i t y , and e mot i o n ; s e r v i n g a s a c h e c k o n c o r ru p tp r a c t i ces b ye x p o s in g th e ju d icia l p ro c e ss to p u b lic sc ru tin y ; en h a n c e m e n t o f th e p e rf o rm a n c e o f

a ll in v o lv e d ; a n d d is c o u ra g e m e n t o f p e rj u ry. U n itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 1 2 3 F

. 3 d 1 4 0 , 1 4 6

- 4 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 7 )

. As has been not ed above , t he ques t i on in t hi s cas e i s notw hether t he medi a has a r i ghtt o acc es s t he voirdir e p r ocee di ngs ; t hat r i g h th a s b e e n c l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e c a s e l a w. Th e a c t ual qu est i on present ed to u s is w hethert he m edia i s ent i t l ed as a m at t erof co n sti tut i onal r i ghtt o know t he names of both t he prospecti ve an d tr i al j urors pr i or t o the em panelm ent

of the tr i al j ury . A r evi ew of the M edi a- I nt ervenor s ’ dem and undert he Sm ith fac t or s does not s uppor t t he conc l us i on t hatknow i ng j ur or names pr i ort o t hei rempanel m ent is inc lude d i n t he r i ghtof a c c e ss p ro tec ted b yth e F irst A m e n d m e n t.
N ei t her t he M aj or i t y nort he M edi a- I nt ervenor s expl ai ns w hyi nfor m ed di s cus s i on orunder s t andi ng of the j ud ic i alIf a n y thing , itw o u ld se em that k n o w ing h o w the ju ry 63 rul ed w oul d putt he publ i c i n a bett erpos i t i on t o deci de w hether t he j udi ci al pr oces s funct i oned appr opr i at el y . Pr i ort o t he ac tual v e rd ict, th e p u b lic ca n o n ly sp e c u late a b o u t h o w th e ju ro rs w ill rul e and w hethers om ethi ng i n thei rper s onal l i ves w i l l aff ect th e ir v e rd ict. 89 pr oces s can onl y t ake pl ace pr e- t r i al

. C or rupt i on coul d j us tas 63 eas i l y be r oot ed out pos t
- t r i al as i t coul d pr e- t r i al

. I n addi t i on, ra th e r th a n m a k in g ju ro rs m o re lik e lyto b e c a n d id in th e ir ans w er s dur i ng voirdir e , know i ng t hat t hei r per s onal l i ves and o p inion s w il l b e e x p o s e d to the p u b li c b ythe m ed ia w il l m o re l i kelym ake jur ors l ess w ill in g to se rv e a n d les s c a n d id in th e ir re s p o n s e s . See I

n r e South C ar ol i na P r ess Ass n. , 946 F. 2d 1 0 3 7 , 1 0 4 4 (4th C ir

. 1 9 9 1 ) (“ [T ]he p o tential juro rs w il l be m o re candi d i n t hei r r es pons es i f t hey do not have t o w or r yaboutw hat th e p u b lic’s o p in io n o f th o se re sp o n se s m ig h t b e .” ) ; see al so Stew art , 3 6 0 F .3 d a t 1 0 4 (“ [ W ]e d o n o t s e e w h ysim p ly conce al i ng t he i dent i ti es of the pr os pect i ve j ur or s w oul d not have be en s uffi ci entt o ens ur e j ur orcandor

. ”)

. Sugges t i ng t hat p rosp ec ti v e juro rs w ill b e less tha n ca n d id o r w il l perjure t hemsel ves abs entm edi a s crut i nyi s ent i r el y t oo cyni cal a vi ew o f th e ju d i c i a l p ro c e s s a n d its p a rt ic ip a n ts
. S e e G a n n e tt , 571 A

. 2d at750 ( “G annett ’ s fai r nes s ar gum enti s bas ed on the pr es um pt i on t hatj u rors w i l l notr es pond t ruthful l y , and th e re f o re , the p u b lic re q u ire s f u rth e r sa f

e g u a rd , w h ich it i s cl ai m ed onl y t he pr es s can pr ovi de. W e r efus e t o adopt s uch a cyni cal vi ew of the cr i m i nal j us t i ce s y s t em. ”)

. T hus , t he Sm ithI n d isc u ss in g th e b e n e f its o f o p e n n e ss , the M a

jo rity 64 s t at es t hati t“ca nnotr econc i l e t he concl us i on t hatt he publ i c has t he r i ghtt o s ee the pr oces s i n w hi ch this p o w er[t o deci de the fat e of a defe ndant ] i s exer ci s ed .

. . and t o s ee the pr oces s t hat s el ect s t hos e w ho w i ll ex erc i s e the pow er. . . , w i t h t he c o n c lu sio n th a t th e p u b lic h a s n o rig h t to k n o w w h o u lti m a tely e x e rc is e s th is p o w e r.” M a j. O p ., supra , at 4 1 . T h e q u e stio n is notw hethert he publ i c ever h a s a rig h t to k n o w w h o sits in jud g m en t of

a d ef en d an t i n the v ast m ajorityo f c ase s, h o w ev er, butw hethert hatr i ghtt o know i s onl yl ogi cal l yexer ci s ed, as t he M a jo ri ty su g g e s ts , pr i orto th e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f th e trial. 90 f a c t o r s d o n o td i c t a t e t h e r e s u l tt h e M a j o r i t y r e a c h e s t o d a y. In a d d iti o n to c o n sid e rin g th e b e n e f its o f p u b lic a c c e ss to t he names of the j ur or s , w e mustal s o cons i dert he pot ent i al 64 d a n g e rs o f

p u b lic a c c e s s . See N

or th Jer s ey M edi a G r oup, I

nc. v . A sh c ro ft , 3 0 8 F .3 d 1 9 8 , 2 1 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) ( n o tin g th a t “to gauge a c c ur a t e l yw he t he ra r ol e i s po s i t i ve , t he c a l c ul us mu st per force t ake a ccountof the fl i p s i de – the ext entt o w hi ch o p e n n e ss im p a irs th e p u b lic g o o d ,” a n d th a t “w e re th e lo g ic p ro n g o n lyto d e ter m in e w h e th e r o p e n n e ss se rv e s s o m e g o o d , it i s di ffi cul t t o conce i ve of a gover nm ent pr ocee di ng t o w hi ch the p u b li c w o u ld no t h av e a First A m en d m en t ri g h t o f a c c ess” ). R equi r i ng di s t r i ct cour t s t o bow t o m edi a dem ands t o know t he n a m e s o f p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro rs w o u ld c e rta in lyim p a ir th e p u b lic g o o d in m a n yc a se s. A lth o u g h th e m e d ia m a yd e sire th is i nfor m at i on fort he avow ed pu rpo se of ope ni ng t he j udi ci alT he D i s t r i ctC ou rt ’ s c o n c e rn s a b o u tj ur orhar as s m entby 65 t he medi a ar e s om ew hatj us t i fi ed b yt he expe r i ence of the D el aw ar e court s i n G a n n e tt : G annett , never t hel es s , i m m edi at el ypubl i s hed an ar t i cl e i n t he mi ds tof tr i al hi ghl i ght i ng t he names and givi ng profi l es of i nd i vidual j u ro rs. A p p a re n tly , th is w a s the f irst n e w sp a p e r a rticle in D el aw ar e t o publ i s h s uch i nfor m at i on w hi l e a tr i al was i n p r o g r e s s . Th e a r t i c l e a d mi t t e d t h a tt he

“ j u r o r s v a l u e [ d ] t h e i rp r i v a c yh i g h l ya n d b e c a me

91 pr oces s t o publ i c s crut i ny , t he medi a w i l l l i kel yuse the i nfor m at i on i tpos s es s es fort he purpos e of w r i t i ng s t or i es about t he pr os pect i ve j ur or s . I n or der to g at herfur t heri nfor m at i on, t her e i s a str o n g pos s i bi l i t yt hatt he medi a w i l l m ake c ont act w ith the pro sp ec ti v e j u rors or th eir fa m il ies an d frien d s b e fo re t he tr i al begi ns . Such r epor t i ng m ayr equi r e s i gni fi cantand unw arr ant ed i nvas i ons of the pr i vacyof the j ur or s , none of w hom had a choi ce about bei ng cal l ed t o s ervi ce. Fur t her m or e, it stan d s to re a so n th a t it is m o r e lik e lyth a t th e p a rties o r th e ir enemi es w i l l be abl e t o exert i nfl uence over t he j ur or s w er e they to k n o w th e ir id e n tit ies . F in a lly , k n o w in g th a t ju ryse rv ice w ill r e s u l ti n p o t e n t i a l h a r a s s m e n ta n d i n v a s i o n s o f t h e i rp r i v a c y, c iti z e n s w ill lik e ly b e m o re re lu c tan t to se rv e a n d les s lik e lyto be ca ndi d dur i ng j ur ys el ect i on. T hus , r equi r i ng pr eem p an e lm e n t disclosu re o f th e ide n ti ti es o f p rosp ec ti v e juro rs ra ise s s ig n if

ica n t c o n c e rn s ab o u t h in d e rin g th e p u b lic in ter e st in fai r and orderl y t ri al s pres i ded ov er byun bias ed jur ors. T his , 65extr emel yups etw hen a .

. . t el evi s i on cr ew f o llo w e d so m e o f th e m to lu n c h a n d a ttem p ted to fil m them ea ti n g . ” F u rth er, it stat ed that the ju rors
“ a v o i d [ e d ] me d i a , f

a mi l y me mb e r s o f

t h e v i c t i ms and def endant , and any one el s e w ho appear[ed] r ecogni zabl e, l eavi ng l ocal r es t aur ant s at t he s i ght o f a f a m ili a r f a c e f ro m th e c o u rtro o m .” T h e a rticle t hen con t i nu ed w i t h d et ai l ed p rofi l es of t he jur ors, givi ng t heirnam es, ho m et ow ns, occu pati on s, m ar i t al s t atus , num berand age s of thei rchi l dr en, per s onal m anner i s m s and appe ar ance . T he l at t er por t r ay al s w er e r ar el yfl at t er i ng. J ur or s w ere d esc ri b ed as h av ing a “ stern e x p ression ”, a “ stern demeanor ”, “s t y l i s hl ydr es s ed”, “admi t s t o a h ea ri n g p rob lem ”, “stou t”, “m o stlyb ald” , “sh o rt a n d ro u n d ” , a n d “ ta ll, b a ld in g a n d th in .” G a n n e tt , 571 A

. 2d at738. I do notm ean t o s ugg es tt hatt he pr es entM edi aI nt er venor s w oul d cons i der act i ng i n t he s ame manner a s G a n n e tt. G a n n e tt m er el y demonst r at es t he p o ss ib le di s rupt i on t hat pr e-tri al dis cl osure of j urors ’ nam es t o the m edia m aycause w ere t he medi a t o acti nappr opr i at el y , and cl ear l yt he M edi aI nt er venor s cannotpr es um e t o pr edi ctw hatot herm edi a s our ces m aydo. 92 i r oni cal l y , i s t he verydanger t he r i ghtof ac ces s s eeks t o avoi d.
In li g h t of

the f o reg o ing an aly sis, the M ajority ’s ar gum entt hatt he r i ghtof ac ces s nece s s ar i ly i ncl udes t he r i ght to hav e th e i d en ti ti es of the pro sp ec ti v e an d tr ia l ju rorsIn fa ct, m an y o f th e cas es cit ed b ythe M ajorityco n ce rn 66 pos t

- tr i alacc es s t o t he i dent i t i es of j ur or s , w hi ch s ugges t s t hat l o g i c d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h e a rb i t r a r yp r e - e mp a n e l me n tl i n e d r a wn b yth e M a

jo ri ty to d a y . See, e. g. , P r es s - E nt er pr is e I, 464 U

. S. at 5 1 2 ; I n r e G l obe N

ew s paper , 920 F. 2d at91- 93. D et erm i ning w hethert he “lo gi c ” pr on g man da t e s a Fi rs t 67 A m e n d m e n t rig h t o f

a c c e ss to th e n a m e s o f th e ju ro rs p rio r to t he tr i al i s a d m i t t edlya specu l at i ve an al y si s that r equ i res a bal anci ng of the theor et i cal benef i t s and detr i m ent s of pr e- t r i al re lea se . H o w e v e r, su c h a n a n a ly sis o f th e th e o re tic a l b e n e f

its and detr i m ent s i s r equi r ed b y the S upr eme C our t
. I f anyt hi ng, t he for egoi ng anal y s i s m akes a s t r ong cas e thatt he dec i s i on w hethert o r el eas e the names of the pr os pect i ve j ur or s s houl d be 93 ann o unced t o t he publ i c pr i ort o t he empanel m entof the tr i al j ur yfai l s t o pas s t he P ress -E n terp rise II l ogi c t es t
. T her e i s no l ogi cal s uppor tfort he l i ne t he M aj or i t y dr aw s w hen i tr equi r es di s cl os ur e as a mat t erof cons t i tut i onal r i ghtpr i ort o t he e m p a n e l m e n to f t h e t r i a l j u r y. See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. 66 E dw ar ds , 823 F. 2d 1 1 1 , 120 ( 5t h C i r . 1987) ( not i ng t hatt he

“ u se f u ln e ss o f

re lea sin g ju ro rs’ n a m e s a p p e a r s to u s h ig h ly q u esti o n ab le”). T h e p o tential that p re-em p an elm en t disclosu re w i l l h i n d e rt h e j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s , w h e t h e rb y t a i n t i n g t h e j u r y, m aki ng i tm or e di ffi cul tt o s el ectan uni nfor m ed j ur y , or s ubj ect i ng t he j ur or s t o har as s m entand depr ed ati on, far out w ei ghs t he bene fi tt o t he publ i c of know i ng t he nam es of the pr os pect i ve and tr i al j ur or s pr i ort o t he comm ence m entof the t r i al

. A ccor di ngl y , I do notbel i eve that log ic s u ppor t s t he 67l eftt o t he meas ur ed di s cr et i on of the tr i al j udge, w ho i s i n t he bes tpos i t i on t o det erm i n e w hetherdi s cl os ur e, i n l i ghtof the par t i cul arfac t s of the cas e, w i l l be more benef i ci al t han detr i m ent al t o t he publ i c good. 94 con st i tuti on al rul e ann ou nced byt he M aj ori ty : t hat cou rt s m ust d iscl ose t he n am es of p rospect i ve an d tr i al j urors t o the m e d ia p r i o rt o e mp a n e l me n ta s a ma t t e ro f c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l a w. B.
T w o cas es fr om ot herj ur i s di ct ion s ar e i ns t ruct i ve, al t hough notbi ndi ng, w i t h r egar d t o t he ques t i on of w hethert he Fi r s tA m endment r i ghtof ac ce s s i ncl udes a r i ghtt o for ce a dis t ric t c o u rtt o d i scl ose t he ident i t yof the prospecti ve jur ors. B ot h U ni t ed St a t es v. B l ack , 4 8 3 F . S u p p . 2 d 6 1 8 (N .D . Ill

. 2007) , and G a n n e tt C o ., In c . v. S ta te , 5 7 1 A

. 2 d 7 3 5 (D el. 1 9 9 0 ), a d d re ss e d f

a c tu a l an d p ro c e d u ra l circ u m sta n c e s v irtu a lly id e n tica l to th o se p re se n ted in th is a p p e a l.
1.
B l ack i nvol ved a hi gh- pr ofi l e cr i m i nal fr aud p r o s ecut i on. In th a t ca se , the d istric t co u rt, rec o g n izin g th e in ten se m e d ia cov erage of the t ri al , held ano ny m ou s voirdir e i n open courtbut e n te rt a in e d th e p e re m p to ry c h a lle n g e s a t s id e b a r. See Bl ack , 483 F. Supp. 2d at 620- 21. Fol l ow i ng j ur ys el ect i on, t he di s t r i ct cour tdiscl o sed t he names of the empanel ed j ur or s and the95 a ltern a tes to th e p a rties , b u t it d id n o t re lea se th a t in f o rm a tio n to th e m e d ia

. Id

. at621. T he medi a fi l ed a mot i on t o compel t he di s t r i ctcour tt o r el eas e the nam es of the j ur or s and al t ernat es p ri o r t o tr ia l. Id . a t 6 2 0

. A ft erengagi ng i n an ext ens i ve di s cus s i on and ana l y s i s of t he P ress -E n terp rise II fac t or s , t he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the m o tio n . S e e id

. at622- 30. A ccor di ng t o t he di s t r i ctcour t , not al l aspect s of t he cri m i nal tri al process ar e prot ect ed b yt he F i rs t A m e n d m e n t’ s ri g h t o f

a c c e s s . S e e id

. at 62 2 (cit ing circu itco u rt deci s i ons hol di ng “thatt he Fi r s t A m endment does notguar ant ee acc es s t o w i t hdr aw n pl ea a gr eement s , aff i davi ts s uppor t i ng s ear ch w arr ant s , orpr es ent ence r epor t s ”)

. T he courtnot ed that t he i s s ue i n B l ack

w as n o t w hethert he medi a had a r i ghtof acc es s t o t he voirdir e pr ocee di ngs , as t hat ques t i on w as s et t l ed, but w hether exper i ence and l ogi c di ct at ed t hat t he m edi a had a cons t i tut i onal r i ght t o l earn t he names of j ur or s befor e a ve r di ct w as ren d ere d

. S e e id

. at624. A ft err evi ew i ng deci s i ons and opi ni ons fr om ot herci r cui tand d is t r i ctcour t s , al l of w hi ch u p h e ld v a ry in g d e g re e s o f re stric tio n o n th e m e d ia’ s a c c e ss to t he names of pr os pect i ve j ur or s , t he di s t r ict co ur tdet erm i ned t hatanal y zi ng t he voi r di r e pr oces s i n l i ght of the “e xper i ence ” pr ong of P ress -E n terp rise II di d not r es ul ti n a fi ndi ng t hatt he m edi a had a cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o t he names of the j ur or s pr i or to th e c o n c lu s io n o f

th e tr ia l. S e e id

. at 6 2 6

. T h e d istri ct co u rt i n B l ack al s o hel d t hat t he “l ogi c” pr ong of the P ress -En t erprise II t es tdi d notes t abl i s h a cons t i tut i onal r i ght

. I n par t i cul ar , t he di s tr i c t c o u r t n o t e d t h a t o p e n a c c e s s t o j u r o r n a me s d i d not96 a c h iev e th e sa m e e f

f e c t o f v in d ica tin g th e p u b lic’s rig h t to o v e rse e ju d icia l p r o c e e d in g s a s d id re q u irin g th e p ro c e ss itse lf to b e a v a ila b le to p u b lic s c ru tin y . S e e id

. at 628 ( “B u t ope n acc es s t o j ur ornames duri ng t he pendency of t r i al has no s i m i l ar eff ectand, i n fac t , di s cl os ur e enh an ces the risk th a t th e ju ryw ill notb e ab le t o funct i on as i ts houl d, i n s ecr ecyand fr ee of any out s i d e i n f

l u e n c e . ” ) ( e mph a s i s i n o r i g i n a l )

. Acc o r d i n g l y , t he cour ti n B l ack r efus ed t o r el eas e t he nam es t o t he medi a, havi ng fo u n d n o co n sti tuti o n al ri g h t t o k n o w the n am es o f th e juro rs p rio r to th e c o n c lu sio n o f th e trial.
2.
A s i n B l ack , t he D el aw ar e Supr eme C our ti n G a n n e tt had to d e ter m in e if

a n d w h e n th e C o n stitu tio n re q u ire s p u b lic d is c lo s u re o f

th e n a m e s o f

p ro s p e c tiv e a n d tr ia l ju ro rs . G a n n e tt i nvol ved a hi gh- pr ofi l e m ur der cas e. B as ed on ex tens i ve publ i ci t yi n t he pri ort r i al of a c o- defe ndantand overw hel m i ng p re -tri al pu b li cit yin the ca se p rese n tl yb ef o re it , the tri al co u rt i n G a n n e tt

d ec ided to w ith h o ld the n am es o f p rosp ec ti v e juro rs fr om t he medi a dur i ng voirdir e ; i t per m i t t ed t he par t i es t o know th e id e n titie s o f th e p ro s p e c tiv e ju ro rs . S e e G a n n e tt , 571 A

. 2d at 737. M uch l i ke the ca s e bef or e us , pr os pect i ve j ur or s i n t he G a n n e tt cas e w er e onl yi dent i fi ed b y t hei ras s i gned j ur or n u m b e r. S e e id

. T he m edi a w as per m i t t ed t o be pr es enti n t he c o u rt ro o m a n d to o b s e rv e a n d re p o rt o n th e p ro c e e d in g s . S e e id

. at 7 3 8

. G an n ett , the p u b li sh er o f a stat e-w ide d ail yn ew sp ap er, i nt er vened a nd pet i t i oned the tr i al cour t t o r el eas e t he names of97 th e p ro s p e c tiv e ju ro rs p r i o r t o ju ry se le c tio n . S e e id

. T he tr i al c o u r tr e f u s e d , a n d Ga n n e t ta p p e a l e d t o t h e De l a w a r e S u p r e me C o u rt. S e e id . a t 7 3 9

. T h e D elaw are S u p rem e C o u rtu p h eld th e tri al court ’ s jury se lec tio n p ro c e d u re s , n o tin g th a t b e c a u se G a n n e tt fa iled to s at i s fyei t herof the P r es s - E nt er pr is e II r equi r ement s , no qual i fi ed r i gh t to the names of t he pr os pect i ve j ur or s exi s t ed p ri o r t o ju ry se le c tio n . S e e id

. at751. A ccor di ng t o t he D el aw are Supr eme C our t , t he i s s ue of w hethert he r i ghtof acc es s i ncl uded the r i ght t o know t he nam es of the pr os pect i ve j ur or s w as one of firs ti m pr es s i on, as al l of the ca s es deal i ng w ith th e rig h t o f

a c c e ss c o n c e r n e d re stric tio n s o n th e rig h t to v i e w c o u r td o c u me n t s or c ompl e t e c l o s u r e s o f t h e c o u r t r o o m. S e e id . at 7 4 1 -4 2 ; se e a lso id

. at742 ( “To our know l edge, ho w ever, no cou rt has y et recogn i zed a ri gh t of access t o jur ors’ names. ”)

. A ccor di ngl y , t he C our t em p l oy ed the P ress E nt er pr is e II testbeca us e i tw as the “mostcl os el yanal ogous bas i s fordi s pos i t i on of the mat t er . ” Id

. T he C our tfr amed t he i ssue i n th e case as: w hethert he “an no un cem ent of j urors ’ names ha s t r adi t i onal l ybeen ope n to the pr es s and gene r al publ i c. ” Id

. at743. I tconcl uded that “the h ist or i cal t r adi t i on g ives tr ial co u rt s d iscreti o n o v er [ voirdir e ] m a tters , w h ich is r efl ect ed i n expr es s s t atut or ypr ovi s i ons enac t ed by dul yel ect ed re p re s e n ta tiv e s o f

th e p e o p le a t th e s ta te a n d n a ti o n a l le v e ls .” Id . a t 7 4 8

. I n addi t i on t o det erm i ni ng th a te x p e r i e n ce w ei ghed on the98 s i de of gi vi ng t he tr i al c o u r t s di s cr et i on t o m anage voirdir e pr ocedur es , t he C our thel d t hatannounci ng t he n am es of t he pr os pect i ve juro rs had onl ya t enuous and i ns i gni fi cantl ogi cal connec t i on t o t he g o als of the Fi r s tA m endment ’ s r i ghtof a c c e s s . S e e id

. at751 ( not i ng t hatt he tr i al cour t ’ s pr ocedur es “as s ur ed the publ i c thatt he tr i al w as fai rw i t houtcl o sing t he proceed i ng s t o any on e, ” and t hat “t here i s no t hing t o sugg est t hats uch ac ti ons under m i ned publ i c trus ti n t he j udi ci al sy ste m ” ). In so h o ld in g , th e C o u rt re jec ted th e c laim s p u t f

o rth byt he def

endantt hatannounci ng t he names of the pr os pect i ve ju r o rs w a s n e c e ss a ryto e n su re th a t ju ro rs w e re c a n d id in th e ir r es pons es t o v oi r di re q u e s tio n in g . S e e id

. at750. T hus , t he C our thel d, t he medi a w as noten ti tl ed, as a mat t erof cons t i tut i onal r i ght , t o t he names of the pr os pect i ve j ur or s pr i or to th e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f th e tr ia l. S e e id

. at751.
3.
B l ack and G a n n e tt

an aly ze d the p rec ise q u esti o n b ef o re u s in v irtu a llyid e n tica l f a c tu a l circ u m sta n c e s. B o th c o u rts con cl ud ed thatt he F i rs tA m end m ent r i gh tof ac cess does not i nclude a ri gh tt o k no w t he nam es o f prospecti ve an d tr i al j urors . T he court s i n bot h cas es under t ook an ext ens i ve and thor ough a n a l y s i s o f t he P ress -E n terp rise II fac t or s i n r eac hi ng the con cl usi on t hat the d eci si on t o w i t hh old the n am es of j urors , w hetherbefor e ordur i ng t he tr i al , i s w i t hi n t he di s cr et i on of the trial c o u rts
. T h o se c o u rts d id n o t, as th e M a jo rityd o e s in its opi ni on, m er el y pr es um e thatbeca us e voirdir e is g e n e ra llyh e ldI n t hei rbr i ef, t he M edi a- I nt ervenor s wer e q u i ck t o poi nt 68 o u t th a t B l ack

w a s a d istric t co u rt d e c isio n , an d th u s e n tit led to l i t t l e w ei ght

. A s I have not ed, how ever , al m os tal l of the ca s es c ited b y th e M e d ia- In ter v e n o rs a n d th e M a jo rityd e a l w ith compl et e cl os ur e of t he pr ocee di ngs or demands forp os t
- t r i al r el eas e of j ur or s names. N ei t hert he M edi a- I nt ervenor s nort he M aj or i t yhave i dent i fi ed anybi ndi ng author i t yt hataddr es s es t he pr eci s e ques t i on befor e us : w hethert he medi a has a r i ghtunder the F ir st A m en d m en t t o fo rce d iscl o su re o f th e n am es o f ju rors pr i ort o t he empanel m entof the j ur y . A ccor di ngl y , t o t he ext ent t hatt he B l ack

c o u rt a c tu a llyre a c h e s th is p re c ise q u e stio n , it s d e c isio n is e n tit led to n o les s w e ig h t th a n a n y o th e r a u th o rity id e n tif ie d b yth e M e d ia -I n te rv e n o rs . F o r th e sa m e re aso n , the D elaw are S u p re m e C o u rt ’s deci s i on i n G a n n e tt is n o t to b e ig n o re d . If a n y th in g , G a n n e tt ’s fac t s and pr ocedur al pos tur e ar e al m os t i dent i cal t o t hos e of the cas e bef or e us . I t i s t he m os t per s uas i ve author i t y t hathas been b ro u g h t to o u r atten tio n , as it i s th e m o st o n -p o in t w ith th e f a c ts o f th e c a s e b e f

o re u s . 99 i n p u b l i c a n d b e c a u s e ma n y y e a r s a g o j u r i e s we r e o n l yd r a wn fr om s m al l comm uni t i es i n w hi ch peopl e knew one another , t hat th e re m u st be a n h isto ric a l trad iti o n o f p e rm itt in g th e p u b lic to force dis cl o sure of t he n am es of p rospect i ve jur ors. A ccor d i ngl y , al t hough t he B lack and G a n n e tt hol di ngs ar e not b in d in g o n o u r C o u rt, th e yd o o f f e r a g re a t d e a l o f

in sig h t as to 68 how t hi s C our t s houl d anal y ze and addr es s the p art i cul ar qu est i on befo re us.T h e M a j o r i t y s u g g e s t s t h a t we r e v i e w de novo w hether 69 t he ri gh t of access incl ud es a ri gh t t o kn ow t he n am es of j urors . See M a j. O p ., supra , at 29 (cit i ng A nt ar , 3 8 F

. 3 d at 13 5 6 -57 ). H ow ever, m uch of the case l aw con cerni ng t he ri gh tof ac cess p lac e s th e b u rd e n o f

sa tisf y in g th e e x p e r ien c e a n d lo g ic te st, w hether expl i ci t l yori m pl i ci t l y , on t he part yas s er t i ng t he r i ght to a c c e s s . S ee , e.g., P ress -E n terp rise II, 478 U

. S. at8; N o rth Jer s ey M edi a G r oup , 3 0 8 F .3 d a t 2 0 9 ; U n itedS ta tes v . C o rb itt , 87 9 F

. 2d 22 4, 22 8 (7t h C i r. 1 9 8 9 ); B l ack , 483 F. Supp. 2d at 6 2 3 ; G a n n e tt , 5 7 1 A .2 d a t 7 4 9

. T o th e e x ten t th a t th e M a jo rity su g g e sts th a t th e b u rd e n is on th e G o v e rn m e n t t o d e m o n stra te t hatno t r adi t i on of opennes s exi s t s , t hi s i s a mi s char act er i zat i on o f th e b u rd e n . See M a

j. O p ., supra , at 3 4 n .2 7 (“ [ T ]h is w o u ld notbyi t s el f pr ove thatno t r adi t i on of openne s s exi s t s . ”)

. T he s t andar d i s ei t her d e n o vo ort he bur den i s on t he M edi aI nt er venor s t o s at i s fyt he P ress -E n terp rise II tes t; th e b u rd e n is noton t he G overnm entt o pr ove the i nappl i cabi l i t yof the P ress E n te r p r ise II fac t or s . R egar dl es s of w hi ch s t andar d i s us ed, how ever , t he cl ai m of a r i ght t o acc es s t he names of j ur or s pr i or t o t he tr i al fai l s t o s at i s fyt he P ress -E n terp rise II tes t. 100 C.
I n concl us i on, an ana l y s i s of the P ress -E n terp rise II t est d o e s n o ts u p p o r tt h e ru l e a n n o u n c e d b y t h e M a j o r i t y t o d a y. N ei t h e rt h e M e d i a - I n t e r v e n o r s n o rt h e M a j o r i t yh a s p r o d uced convi nci ng evi dence t hatt he publ i c has a qual i fi ed r i ghtunder t he Fi r s tA m endmentt o for ce the di s cl os ure of t he names of b o th th e p ro sp e c tiv e a n d trial ju ro rs p rio r to e m p a n e lm e n t. 69101 T he M aj or i t y ’ s anal y s i s of w hethert her e i s an hi s t or i cal pr act i ce of r evea l i ng t he nam es of pros pect i ve and t r i al j ur or s pr i ort o t he empanel m entof the t r i al j ur y l ar gel yi gnor es t he s ugges t i ons of C ongr es s and t he J udi ci al C onfer ence , as w el l as cour tpr act i ces of atl eas tt he l as thal f- centur y . I n addi t i on, t he M aj or i t yr el i es on cas es gr ant i ng t he medi a pos t

- tr i al acc es s t o j ur or names for t he pr opos i t i on t h at t he medi a i s ent i t l ed t o t he names of the j urors p rio r to t he t r i al , a concl us i on t hat does notfol l ow fr om the c it ed au tho ri ty
. F inally , the M ajority o ff ers l ittl e t o su p p o rt i t s concl us i on t hatt he publ i c’ s des i r e t o know the n am es of j ur or s pr i or t o t he begi nni ng of t he t r i al pl ay s s uch an i m por t ant r ol e i n t he pr operfunct i oni ng of the j udi ci al pr oces s t hatt he m edi a i s ent i tl ed t o for ce pr e- t r i al di s cl os ur e des pi t e the tr i al cour t ’ s det er m i nat i on t hatanonym i t yi s i n t he bes ti nt er es t s of t he p a r t i e s a n d t h e j u d i c i a l s y s t e m. Si mpl y b e c a u s e pr eempanel m ent di s cl os ur e m ay pl ay a pos i t i ve r ol e i n s om e ca s es does not , b y it sel f, m ake thatr ol e s o s i gni fi cantt hatpr ee m p a n e lm e n t d is c lo s u re is re q u i r e d b yth e C o n s titu tio n . See G a n n e tt , 5 7 1 A .2 d a t 7 4 5 (“ M e re ly b e c a u se a n h isto ric p ro c e d u re e x ists, d o e s n o t au to m a tic a ll ye n lar g e it t o c o n s titu tio n a l p ro p o rt io n s .” ).
T h e n a m e s o f ju ro rs a re n e ith e r a “ p la c e ” n o r a “ p ro c e s s ,” and the hi s t or yof voirdir e , e s p e c i a l l y o v e rt h e l a s th a l f

- c e n tu r y, has been one of i ncr eas ed discretion on t he partof the di s t r i ct co u rt s. N eit h er “ ex p e ri e n ce ” n o r “log ic” su g g ests that juro rs have t o be know n t o t he publ i c pr i ort o the begi nni ng of the tr i al i n o r d e rf

o rt h e j u d i c i a l s ys t e m t o f u n c t i o n p r o p e r l y a n d f

a i r l y. If any t hing, t he an on ym i t yof p rospect i ve an d tr i al j urors , e sp e ci al l yi n h i gh profi l e cases, i s m ore c o n s i s t e n twi t h t he p ro p e r a n d f

a ir f u n c tio n in g o f th e ju d ic ia l p ro c e s s . S e e S c a rfo , 8 5 0 F

. 2 d at 1 0 2 3 (“B ec au se th e sy stem co n tem p lat es th at j u rorsS e e a lso S c a rfo , 8 5 0 F

. 2 d at 10 2 3 (“A s jud g es, w e a re 70 aw ar e that , even i n r out i ne cr i m i nal cas es , veni r emen ar e oft en u n c o m f o rta b le w ith d isc lo su re o f th e ir n a m e s a n d a d d re ss e s to a def endant

. . . . I f .

. . j ur yanonym i t ypr om ot es i m par t i al d e c isio n m a k in g [ in h ig h -p ro f ile c a se s], th a t re su lt is li k e ly t o h o ld e q u a lly tru e [ e v e n ] i n le s s c e le b ra te d c a s e s .” ). 102 w ill in c o n sp icu o u slyf

a d e b a c k in to th e c o m m u n ityo n c e th e ir t enur e i s compl et ed, anonym i t y w oul d s eem ent i r el ycons i s t ent w ith , rathe r th an an athe m a to, th e juryco n ce p t. ”). 70 A c c o rd in g ly , I c a n n o t jo in th e M a jo rity ’s h o ld in g th a t th e m e d ia has a const i tut i onal r i ght t o know t he names of the pr os pect i ve and t r i al j ur or s , and thatt hi s r i ghtm us tbe vi ndi cat ed pr i ort o t he e m p a n e lm e n t o f

th e ju ry.
III

. T he M aj or i t y ’ s anal y s i s of P r es s - E nt er pr is e I and P ress E nter prise II l e a d s i t t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e a b i l i t y of t he m edi a t o for ce di s cl os ur e of t he i dent i t i es of t he pr os pect i ve and t r i al j ur or s i s pr ot ect ed as par t of t he F i r s t A m endment r i ghtof acc es s . E ven i f I agr eed t hat t hi s anal y s i s w as corr ect , w hi ch I d o n o t, I w o u ld h o ld tha t th e re aso n s g iven b ythe D istri ct C o u rt i n i t s D ece m ber21 O r derw er e s uffi ci entt o per m i tt he D i s t r i ct C our tt o t empora r i l y w i t hhol d the nam es of the pr os pect i ve and t ri al j urors . A.
A s t hi s C our thas not ed, t he medi a’ s Fi r s tA m endmentA s t he Supr eme C our tacknow l edged, s om e par t s of the 71 j udi ci al pr oces s m ay n ee d to be t empora r i l ys hi el ded fr om t he s crut i nyof the medi a i n or dert o pr ot ectt he r i ght s of the d e f e n d a n t o r t h e ri g h ts o f th e ju ro rs . See Pre s s - E nt er pr is e I, 464 U

. S. at509. C er t ai n par t s of the pr oces s , s uch as s i debar d isc u ss io n s o r p riv a te d isc u ss io n s b e tw e e n th e p a rties in chamber s , have be en hi s t or i cal l yconduct ed aw ayfr om t he publ i c. I n addi t i on t o t he comm on pr act i ce i n cour t s , t he U ni t ed St at es C ode al s o pr ot ect s i nfor m at i on and r ecor ds us ed byt he cl erk of co urt s i n co nn ect i on w ith the j urysel ect i on process. See 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 8 6 7 (f). 103 r i ght t o have acc es s t o t r i al pr ocee di ngs i s notabs ol ut e. Sm ith , 71 123 F. 3d at 147. I t i s , r ather , a pr es um pt i ve r i ght t hat ca n be o ver come w her e ther e i s a compel l i ng r eas on t o cl os e the p ro c e e d in g s o r w ith h o ld th e in f o rm a tio n . See P ress -En t erprise I, 46 4 U

. S

. at50 9 (r equ i ri ng t he d i stri ctcou rt to sh o w cause “tha t ou tw eigh s the v alue o f o p en n ess” ). A s the S u p rem e C o u rt s ugges t ed i n P r es s - E nt er pr is e I, a di s t r i ctcou rt m us tpl ace s uffi ci entand compel l i ng r eas oni n g o n t he r ecor d s uch that“a r evi ew i ng cour tcan d et erm i ne w hethert he cl os ur e or derw as pr oper l yent er ed. ” S e e id

. a t5 1 0

. I n l i g h tof t he S u p r e me C our t ’ s j ur i s prudence i n t hi s ar ea, i ti s nec essa ryt o det erm i ne w hether t her e i s a com pel l i ng r eas on fort he ac t i ons t aken byt he D istric t C o u rt a n d w h e th e r th o se a c tio n s a re n a rro w lytailo re d to a c h ie v e th e g o a ls o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt
. See A nt ar , 38 F. 3d at 1 3 5 9

. 1.
T he Di s t r i c t Cou r t h a d a n u mbe r o f c o n c e r n s i n m i nd w h en itp rep are d it s juryselec ti o n o rde r. T h e D is tr ictC o u rt expr es s ed a gr eat deal of conce r n aboutt he har as s m entt hatt heT h e M ajorityca su all yca sts a s ide th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s 72 conce r n t hatt he M edi a - I nt ervenor s w antt o publ i s h s t or i es about the p rosp ec ti v e j u rors prior to th e em p an elm en t o f th e jury

. In l i ghtof the pr eval ence of the new s m edi a i n m odern s oci etyand t he r i s k t hatj ur or s coul d be i nflu en ced bym edi a cove r age or hindered i n thei r abi l i t yt o b e i m part i al , I w ou ld n o t be so c a v a l i er i n di sm i ssi ng t he D i stri ct C ou rt ’s con cerns. Itis d ifficu ltto im ag ine th at i t w o u ld b e p o ssible to p ick a fa ir , i m par t i al , and w i l l i ng j ur y t hathas no out s i de know l edge of t he cas e i f the new s m edi a camps out s i de of the j ur or s ’ hous es and q u e stio n s th e m o n th e ir w a yto th e c o u rth o u se . T h is is n o t to s ugges tt hatt he M edi a - I n t ervenor s ’ m ot i ves ar e i m pr operort hat th ese part i cularm edia out l et s w i l l at t em pt t o h aras s or w rite s t or i es aboutt hes e j ur or s . N evert hel es s, ot herm ember s of the m e d ia c o u ld d o so . T h e D istric t C o u rt is l ik e ly c o rre c t, how ever : t he medi a i n gene ral w ant s t he names of the pr os pect i ve j ur or s i n or der t o publ i s h s t or i es aboutt hem. Such s t or i es w i l l ar guabl y req ui r e cont actbetw een the M edi aI nt er venor s , or ot her m ember s of t he medi a, and the pr os pect i ve j ur or s , w hi ch runs t he r is k of furt herdi m i ni s hi ng t he pool of i m par t i al pr os pect i ve jur or s i n a ca s e thathas al r eadyr ece i ved a g re a t d e a l o f

lo c a l, s ta te , a n d n a tio n a l m e d ia a tte n tio n .

104 ju ro rs, a s w e ll as th e ir f a m ili e s, f rie n d s, a n d c o -w o rk e rs, w o u ld f a c e w e re th e ir id e n tit ies k n o w n to th e m e d ia p rio r to th e trial. T he D i s tr ictC our tal s o not ed thati t s r el uct ance t o r el eas e the names of the j ur or s pr i ort o empanel m entof the j ur yw as bas ed, i n par t , on t he ef

fec tt h at s u ch m edi a expos ur e w oul d have on t he abi l i t yt o s el ecta j ur yt hatw oul d be fa i r , i m par t i al , and w i l l i ng t o s er ve. A s t hi s C our thas not ed, a fa i rand i m par t i al 72 ju ry is a n e s s e n tia l p a rt o f o u r s y s te m o f

ju s tic e . See G ov’ tof V i r gi n I s l ands v. R i l ey , 9 7 3 F .2 d 2 2 4 , 2 2 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (“ It is axi om at i c thatone of the fundam ent al r i ght s a def endant p o ss e s s e s is th e rig h t to a f a ir trial b e f

o re a n im p a rtial,A r guabl y , t he num berof pr e- t r i al m ot i ons and 73 i nt er l ocut or y appea l s , t he pr om i nence of the def endant , t he in ter v e n tio n o f th e m e d ia in th e m a tter, a n d th e sig n if ica n t m e d ia c o v e ra g e th is c a se h a s a lre a d yg a rn e re d su g g e st th a t th is c a se is farfr om t he us ual , run- of- t he- m i l l cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on. 105 ‘ i ndi ffe r ent ’ j ur y of hi s peer s . ”)

. T hus , pr ot ect i ng t he j ur yfr om har as s m entand out s i de i nfl uence i s es s ent i al t o ens ur i ng t hatt he ju ry ’s v e rd ict is f

re e f ro m d o u b t.
T he D i s t r i ctCour t ’ s conce r n aboutpr ot ect i ng t he pr i vacy o f th e juro rs go es in tan d e m w ith the a fo rem en ti o n ed co n ce rn ab o u t a v o i d i n g p o t e n t i a l o u t s i d e i n f l u e n c e s o n th e j u r y . I n t he D ece m ber21 O r der , t he D i s t r i ctC our t not ed i t s conce r n about t he pri v ac yof the pr os pect i ve and tr i al j ur or s gi ven the t r emendous medi a att ent i on t hi s t r i al has garner ed. T he pr i vacy of j ur or s i s a s i gni fi canti nt er es t , as pr ot ect i ng t hatpr i vacyi s t he b e s t w a y to a v o id h a ra s s m e n t o f th e ju ro rs . See P ress -En t erprise I, 4 6 4 U .S . at 5 1 1 -1 2 ; se e a lso id . a t 5 1 9 (S te v e n s , J ., concurr i ng) ( “A s t he C our t r ecogni zes , t he pr i vacyi nt er es t s of j u r o r s ma yi n s o me c i r c u ms t a n c e s p r o v i d e a b a s i s f o rs o me l i m i t at i on on t he publ i c’ s acc es s t o v oi r di re . ”)

. A s w i t h t he c o n c e rn a b o u t th e p o ten tial f o r th e M e d ia- In ter v e n o rs to i nfl uenc e o rdet ert he j ur yfr om i m par t i al cons i der at i on of the cas e, how ever , t he M aj ori tydi s m i s s es t hi s conce r n w i t hout m uch di s cus s i on, not i ng t hat : “The D i s t r i ctC our thas not es t abl i s hed t hat t her e i s anyt hi ng unus ual aboutt hi s cas e, as i de fr om a l ocal l y pr om i nent defe ndant , t hatm akes t he pr os pect i ve j ur or s’ hypot het i cal pr i vacyconce r ns m or e compel l i ng t han u s u a l.” S e e M a

j

. O p ., supra , at45. C er t ai nl y , ens ur i ng t hat 73 j ur ors a r e nothar as s ed, i nfl uence d, det err ed fr om s ervi ce, or h in d e re d in th e ir a b ili tyto b e h o n e st in th e ir a n sw e rs a t voirdir eT he Supr eme C our tdi s cus s ed how j ur or s i n ano ther 74 hi gh- pr ofi l e ca s e w er e har as s ed: A s a cons equ ence [of publ i s hi ng t he names and addr es s es of the pr os pect i ve j ur o r s ] , anonym ous l et t er s an d t el ephone c al l s , as w el l as cal l s fr om fr i ends , r egar di ng t he i m pendi ng pr os ecut i on w e re re c e iv e d b ya ll o f

th e p ro s p e c tiv e ju r o r s . . . . [N ]u m e ro u s p ictu re s o f th e ju ro rs, w ith th e ir ad d resse s, w h ich a p p ea red in the n ew sp ap ers b e f o re a n d d u rin g th e trial itse lf e x p o se d th e m to exp r e s s i o n s o f o p i n i o n f r o m b o t h c r a n k s and fr i ends

. T he fa ct t hatanonym ous l et t er s had bee n r ece i ved by pr os pect i ve j ur or s s houl d have made th e ju d g e a w a re th a t th is p u b licityse rio u sly t h r e a t e n e d t h e j u r o r s ’ p r i v a c y. Sh e p p a r d , 384 U

. S. at342, 353. T he M aj or i t ys ugges t s , w i t houtqual if i cat i on or 75 ex p lana ti o n , that m ak ing the id en ti ti es of the p rosp ec ti v e juro rs know n t o t he medi a pr i or t o empanel m ent of t he j ur ym i ghtdet er m i s r epr es ent at i on orr evea l j uror b ias

. J us tas s t r ong an ar gum entcan be m ade t hat al l ow i ng t he m edi a t o r epor ton t he ans w er s gi ven byt he i ndi vi dual j ur or s dur i ng j ur ys elec t i on w ou l d m ake those j urors l ess lik e lyto b e f o rth c o m in g in th e ir a n s w e rs . S ee I

n r e South C ar ol i na P r es s A s s ’ n. , 946 F. 2d at 1 0 4 4 (“ [ T ]h e p o ten tial ju ro rs w ill b e m o re c a n d id in th e ir resp o n ses if th ey d o n o t hav e to w o rryab o u t w h at th e p u b li c’s opi ni on of thos e r es pons es m i ghtbe. ”)

. C er t ai nl y i n a cas e s uch as t he i ns t antone, w h ic h has pol i t i cal , r el i gi ous , and cul tur al under t ones , i t i s m or e compel l i ng t o ens ur e t hatp rosp ect i ve j ur or s ar e m ore op en i n reveal i ng t heirpersonal bi ases, no tl ess 106 i n s uch a hi gh- pr ofi l e cr i m i nal cas e i s a compel l i ng r eas on for 74 l i m i t i ng t he amount of i nfor m at i on t o w hi ch the m edi a has a c c e ss b e f

o re a n d d u rin g th e trial. 75o p e n , as w ill lik e lyb e th e re su lt o f th e M a jo rity’ s d e c isio n to gr antt he M edi a- I nt ervenor s un li m i t ed pr e- t r i al acc es s t o t he i den t i t i es of t he p rospect i ve an d tr i al j urors . B ot h t he M aj or i t yand D r . W echt acknow l edge t hathe 76 has enemi es t hatm i ghtbe i nt er es t ed i n s eei ng t hathe i s found g u il ty
. See M a

j. O p ., supra , at49 (“W echt m ade these s t at ement s [conc erni ng t he pos s i bi l i t y that hi s enemi es m i ght a ttem p t to in f

lu e n c e th e ju ry ] in su p p o rt o f th e o p p o site concl us i on: t hat t he j ur ys houl d notbe anonym ous beca us e the d ef en se a n d the m ed ia m u st be ab le t o en su re tha t W ec h t’ s e n e m ie s d o n o t enter the juryp o o l w ith o u t bein g d etec ted.”). A l t hough t he M aj or i t yr efe r s t o t hi s por t i on of D r . W echt ’ s br i ef i n s uppor t of opennes s , t he fact t hatt hos e ene m i es m i ghtat t empt 107 T he otherconc erns voi ced byt he D i s t r i ctC our tar e no les s c o m p e lli n g . T h e D istr ict C o u rt c o n sid e re d th e p o ss ib ili ty t hatfr i ends orenemi es of D r . W echtm i ghtat t empt t o har as s or i nfl uence t he j ur yw er e t he i dent i t i es of t he pr os pect i ve and tr i al juro rs k n o w n to the p u b li c b ef o re a n d d u ri n g the tri al. D r. W echti s a pr om i nent pol i t i cal fi gur e i n w es t ern Penns y l vani a, a n d m a n y m a y p e r c e i v e t h i s p r o s e c u t i o n a s p o l i t i c a l l ym o tiv a ted . D r. W e c h t h a s te stif ied in h u n d re d s o f

trials r egar di ng caus es of death, and hi s t es t i m onyhas fr equent l yl ed t o fi ndi ngs of gui l torl i abi l i t y . H e i s a pr om i nentcomm ent at or and w r i t eras w el l , as t he l et t er s t o t he edit o r in cl uded i n t he r ecor d r evea l

. A l t hough D r . W echti s notof the s ame i l k as t he organized cri m e fi gu res i n cases such as U n ited S ta tes v . Sc a rfo , he i s nonethel es s a pr om i nentand contr over s i al fi gur e. G i ven hi s pos i t i on as a pr om i nentpol i t i cal fi gur e and a n el ect ed offi ci al , i ti s ent i r el ypos s i bl e thatt h ere are m ember s of the p u b lic w h o h a v e a n in ter e st is s e e in g a p a rticu lar o u tco m e in th is c a se . In a d d iti o n , D r. W e c h t s ta n d s to b e d e p riv e d o f h is 76t o i nfl uence t he tr i al does not l ogi cal l yr equi r e thatt he D i s t r i ct C o u rt m ustdis cl ose t he n am es pr i ort o em panelm ent
. A ddi t i onal l y , i tw oul d s eem t o be a c om m on s ens e pr opos i t i on t hat i t i s m uch har derfornon- j ur or s t o i nfl uence t he j ur yi f they do notknow w ho t he ac tual j ur or s ar e. 108 lib e rtyb a se d o n th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict, so e n su rin g th a t th e ju ryis f a ir a n d im p a rtial, a n d th a t th e ir v e rd ict is f re e f ro m d o u b t, i s e v e n m o re c o m p e lli n g in th e in sta n t ca se . A s th e D istric t C o u rt, and nott hi s C our t , i s i n t he bes t pos i t i on t o j udge the l i kel i hood of pot ent i al l y harm ful i nfl uence s on t he j ur y , w e s houl d gi ve the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s eval uat i on of the “l ocal amb ie nce” of the tr i al a gr eatdeal of w ei ghtw hen dec i di ng w hetherit s r eas ons for lim itin g th e m e d ia ’s a c c e s s a re in f a c t c o m p e llin g . S e e S c a rfo , 850 F. 2d at1023.
2.
W i t h r egar d t o t he s econd pa r tof the F i r s tA m endment tes t, th a t th e p ro c e d u re s a d o p ted b y th e d istric t c o u rt b e n a rro w ly tai lored to ac h ieve the c o u rt ’s st ated g o als, the D istri ct C o u rt ’s l i m i ton t he medi a’ s acc es s t o t he names of the pr os pect i ve and t r i al j ur or s onl y befor e and dur i ng t he t r i al pas s es cons t i tut i onal m u ste r. T h e D istric t C o u rt’s r e stric tio n s o n m e d ia a c c e ss in th is ca se a re e x tr em elyli m it ed

. A c c o rd ing to the D istri ct C o u rt ’s or der , t he medi a i s enti tl ed t o be pr es entforal l phas es of v o ir dir e . T heyar e e nt i t l ed t o r evi ew t he ques t i ons as ked on the ques t i onnai r e pr i or t o t he begi nni ng of j ur y s el ect i o n . T he chal l enges forcaus e, al t hough m ade so l el yon t he bas i s of the ques t i onnai r e and w i t hout t he benef i t of i n- cour tq u est i oni ng, w i l l be made i n open cour t
. T he part i es w i l l t hen i nt ervi ew t he ind ividu al pro s p e c ti v e juro rs be fo re m ak ing their pe rem p toryA s I no t ed in previ ou s sect i on s, al m ostal l o f t he case 77 l aw conce r ni ng t he r i ght of acc es s deal s w i t h c o m p lete clos u re o r po st- tr ial d en ial s o f a cc ess to jud ici al reco rd s . S e e , e .g ., P r e s s -E n te r

p r is e I, 464 U

. S. at 504 ( di s cus s i ng t he fac tt hatt he t r i al j udge hel d onl yt hr ee da y s of publ i c voi rdi r e hear i ngs and clos ed the ad d it ion al six w ee k s o f ju ryselec ti o n to the p u b li c); A nt ar , 38 F. 3d at1351 ( not i ng t hatalt h o u g h t he voirdir e pr ocee di ng w as t echni cal l y “open” t o t he publ i c, t he pr es s w as excluded based o n an order from the tri al j ud ge fo r the p urpose o f f ree ing u p ad d it ion al sea ts)

. I ndeed, t he Seco n d C i r cui ts ugges t ed thatal t hough 78 c o m p lete cl os ur e of the voirdir e p roc ess w as im p ro p er, m o re lim ite d c lo s u re , i ncl udi ng the w i thholdi ng of the i dent i t i es of

the 109 chal l enges ; t hi s w i l l l i kew i s e be done i n open courtand under th e sc ru tin y o f

th e m e d ia. F in a lly , the m e d ia w ill h a v e a c c e ss to t he compl et ed ques t i onnaires fol l ow i ng t he conc l us i on of the t r i al

. T he medi a t hus has acc es s t o al m os teveryas pectof, and p iec e o f in f o rm a tio n re late d to , ju ryse lec tio n . T h e o n ly i nfor m at i on t hat t he m edi a i s notper m i t t ed t o know befor e and dur i ng t he tr i al i s t he i dent i t y of t he i ndi vi dual pr os pect i ve and t r i al juro rs , as t heyw i l l be r efe rr ed t o onl ybyt hei ras s i gned n u m b e r. T h u s, th e D istric t C o u rt’s r e s tr ic tio n s a re e n tirely d iffer entfr om t hos e ati s s ue i n A nt ar , on w hich the M ajo rity re lie s . See Ant ar , 38 F. 3d at1350 ( hol di ng t hats eal i ng of t r ans cr i ptof voirdir e pr ocee ding s w as i m pr operand thatt he m edi a w as ent i t l ed t o t he compl et e tr ans cr i pt s aft ert h e tr i al concl uded)

. I n A nt ar , unl i ke thi s cas e, t he medi a w as deni ed acc es s t o t he ent i r etyof the voirdir e pr oces s byvi r tue of the sea l place d o n the tran scripts. H ere , the D istri ct C o u rt ’s 77 m ea su res to e n su re a fa iran d p rop er tri al w ere m u ch m o re narr ow l yt ai l or ed. 78prospec t i ve j urors , w o u ld p ass c o n sti tuti o n al m u s te r. See Stew art , 360 F. 3d at104- 06. A nd, of cour s e, w e w oul d r evi ew s uch a deci s i on for 79 a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . See U

ni t ed St at es v. Shi om os , 864 F. 2d 16, 18 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ( ci t i ng H olt v. Un i t ed Stat es , 218 U

. S. 245, 2 5 1 (19 1 0 )). 110 B.
T h e ju ryse le c ti o n p ro c e d u re e m p lo y e d b yth e ju d g e in t he i ns t antm at t erw as a com p rom i s e bas ed on the var i ous interests a t stak e: th e p u b li c’s interest in o p en n ess, th e m ed ia’s i nter est i n kno w i ng cert ai n i nfo rm at i on , t he defen dan t ’s i nter est i n a f a i rt r i a l , t h e j u r y ’ s i n t e r e s ti n p r i v a c ya n d b e i n g f r e e f r om harass m ent and i nti m i dati on , and t he j ud i ci al sy st e m ’s int eres t in f a irn e ss a n d e f

f icie n c y . C e rta in ly , the D istric t C o u rt c o u ld h a v e t a k e n o t h e ra c t i o n , i n c l u d i n g s e q u e s t e r i n g t h e j u r y. 79 S e q u e str a tio n , h o w e v e r, is “ o n e o f th e m o st b u rd e n so m e to o ls of the many avai l abl e t o as s ur e a fai r t r i al , ” and i ts houl d onl ybe em p loy ed if t h e re a re n o o ther, l ess b u rde n so m e o r m o re e f f e c tiv e o p tio n s a v a ila b le

. See M as tr i an v. McM

anus , 554 F. 2d 8 1 3 , 8 1 9 (8 th C ir. 1 9 7 7 ); se e a lso G a n n e tt , 5 7 1 A

. 2 d at 75 1

. In th e in sta n t ca se , the e x tre m e lylim ited re str ic ti o n s o n m e d ia access w ere far m ore a ccom m od at i ng t o t he M edia- Int erveno rs , as w el l as farl es s bur dens om e on t he j ur or s and the court , t han s e q u e s tr a tio n w o u ld h a v e b e e n . I n or dert o effect i vel ys at i s fyt he var i ous , and oft en compet i ng, i nt er es t s of the publ i c, t he medi a, t he def endant , t he g o v e rn m e n t, th e ju ro rs, a n d th e c o u rts, th e D istric t C o u rt in th is cas e chose t he l eas tr es t r i ct i ve means t o achi eve i t s goal s w hen i t perm i t t ed t he m edi a acc es s t o every t hi ng exce ptt he i dent i t i esI n fac t , t he D i s t r i ct C our tcons i der ed and made fi ndi ngs 80 r el at ed t o every pot ent i al r i s k t o t he j ur yfr om over expos ur e that th e M a jo ri ty ar tic u la te s i n i t s o p in io n . See M a j. O p ., supra , at 40 ( “Fi r s t , w hen the names of j ur or s ar e p u b li c, fr i ends or enemi es of a cr i m i nal defe ndantm ayfi nd i teas i ert o i nfl uence the j u ry ’s d ec isi o n . In a n ex tr em e c ase , this co u ld tak e the fo rm o f th re a ts to th e ju ro rs o r th e ir f a m ilym e m b e rs. S e c o n d , if ju ro rs k n o w th a t th e m e d ia w ill a ttem p t to c o n tac t th e m o r th e ir f a m ili e s, th e ym a yre sis t se rv in g o n h ig h -p r o f il e c a se s a t all beca us e theyfea rt hat t hei rpr i vacyw i l l be thr eat ened. T hi r d, pu bli c kn ow l edg e of j urors ’ i den t i t i es m i gh t actually in creas e th e risk o f

m isre p re se n tatio n a t voir d ire , b ec au se so m e juro rs w i l l be t empt ed t o l i e i n or dert o avoi d t he di s cl os ur e of em barr ass in g in f

o rm a tio n .”). T h e M a

jo rity ’s d isa g re e m e n t w ith t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i ons as t o t he danger s t o t he j ur yand the tri al pro ce ss is no t byit self a su ff ici e n t re a so n to o v erturn t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j ur ys el ect i on pr ocedur es . A l t h o u g h I r ecogni ze thatours t andar d of r evi ew i s l es s defe r ent i al t o t he f in d in g s o f

th e D istr ic t C o u rt w h e re a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to acc es s i s r ai s ed, t he M aj or i t y t oday notonl yfai l s t o defe rt o t he D istric t C o u rt’s e v a lu a tio n o f th e c irc u m sta n c e s s u rro u n d in g its t r i a l , i t a p p e a r s t o i g n o r e t h e D i s t r i c tC o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n te n t i r e l y. 111 o f th e p ro sp e c tiv e a n d trial ju ro rs. T h e D istr ict C o u rt c lea rly s t at ed s uffi ci ent l ycompel l i ng r eas ons t o w arr ants om e manner o f p rotec ti o n fo r th e juro rs. T h e c o n ce rns o f th e D istri ct C o u rt w e re n o t, as th e M a jo rityso c a su a llysu g g e sts , m e re ly gener al ized c oncerns aboutj ur orpr i vacy . G i ven the D i s t r i ct 80 C our t ’ s extr emel ynarr ow and tempora r yi m pos i t i on on t he M edi a- I nt er venor s , t he M aj or i t y ’ s concl us i on t hatt he D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s a c tio n s w e re n o t n a r r o w lytailo re d to p ro tec t aA s I n o te d in P a rt II , supra , t he Fi r s tA m endmentdoes 81 notr equire t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s cl os e the names of the p r o s p e c t i v e a n d t r i a l j u r o r s p r i o r t o t h e e m p a n e l m e n to f t h e j u r y. W e s houl d r es er ve j udgm ent on t he ques t i on of w hethers uch a r i ghtm ayexi s t aft er t he concl us i on of t he t r i al , as t hati s nott he ques t i on befor e us . A s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derr el at ed t o t he conduct of t he t r i al , a pr ovi nce l eftal m os tent i r el yt o t he contr ol of the D i s t r i ctC our t , i t s act i ons s houl d be r evi ew ed t o det erm i ne i f ther e w as an abus e of di s cr et i on. I n l i ghtof the fore goi ng di s cus s i on, t he re as ons ci t ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our tar e more t han s uffi ci entt o uphol d i t s di s cr et i onarydeci s i on t o w it h hol d t he names of the pros pect i ve and t r i al j ur or s dur i ng t he pende ncyof t he tr i al

. T hus , t her e w as no abus e of di s cr et i on. 112 compel l i ng i nt er es ti s i ncorr ect
. A ccor d ingl y , I w oul d have 81 u p h eld th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s j u ryselec ti o n o rde r.
I V.
T he bi gges tp robl em w i t h t he M aj or i t y ’ s hol di ng i s t he natur e of the r emedy the M aj or i t yfas hi ons fort he al l eged vi ol at i on of t he Fi r s t A m endment

. T o r ever se th e D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s D e c e m b e r 2 1 O rd e r a n d to o r d e r th e D istric t C o u rt to d isc lo se th e n a m e s o f

th e p ro sp e c tiv e a n d trial ju ro rs is n o t o n ly pr emat ur e, i ti m pr oper l yi nvades t he tr adi t i onal pur vi ew of the d istric t co u rts. G iv e n th e sta te o f th e law a n d th e f

a c ts o f th is cas e, as w el l as t he fa ctt hatt he ca s e w as nei t herfur t herbr i efe d norar gued, t he M aj or i t y ’ s deci s i on t o gr ant the M edi aI nt er venor s ’ r eques tforr ever s al i s notappr opr i at e.
T h e M a jo rityto d a yre d e f

in e s th e c o n to u rs o f

th e w e lles t abl i s hed r i ghtof a cc ess i n s uch a w ayas t o now i ncl ude a cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o know t he names o f t he pr os pect i ve andT he M edi a- I nt ervenor s ’ m ot i on as ked thi s C our tfor 82 s um m aryr ever s al underI

. O

. P. 10. 6 o r a stayof j ur ys el ect i on. A ccor di ngl y , t he br i efs fi l ed by t he part i es addr es s ed and focus ed on thos e quest i ons . B ot h R ul e 10. 6 and the rul es governi ng s t ay s have di ffe r ent s t andar ds and t es t s t han does t he ques t i on befor e us , how ever . T her e w as no addi t i onal br i efi ng speci fi cal l yfocu si ng on t he is sues of w hethert he ri gh tof ac cess i ncl udes a r i ght t o for ce t he di s cl os ur e of t he j ur or s ’ names a nd w h e th e r th e rig h t m ust be vi ndi cat ed pr i or t o t he em panel m ent of t he j ur y , as t he M aj or i t y s ugges t s . T hi s C our t w oul d h ave benef i t t ed fr om m or e del i ber at i on and ei t heraddi t i onal br i efi ng att he d i rect io n o f t his C ou rtor oral argum ent on t hese qu est i on s. 113 trial ju ro rs e v e n b e f

o re th e trial ju ry is se a ted

. A s d isc u ss e d in t he pr ece di ng s ect i ons , t he l aw i s farfr om cl eart hatt he r i ghtof a c c e ss in c lu d e s s u c h in f o rm a tio n . T h e re is e v e n les s s u p p o rt in t h e c a s e l a w f

o r t h e M a

j o r i t y ’ s h o l d i n g t h a t t h i s r i g h tt o know t he n am es of t he jur ors m ustb e v in d ica ted b e f o re th e ju ryis empanel ed. D espi t e thi s s eemi ng l ack of cl ar i t y , w hi ch the M aj or i t ydoes acknow l edge, t he M aj or i t ynonethel es s hol ds t hat the l aw is so clea r as t o w arran t v ac ati n g the D istric t C o u rt’s D ece m ber21 O r der and or der i ng i t t o di vul ge t he names of the pr os p ec t i ve and tr i al j ur or s . A nnounci ng a new cons t i tut i onal pr ot ect i on fort he medi a’ s i nt er es ti n l earn ing j ur ori dent i t i es b e f o re e m p a n e lm e n t w i thoutaddi t i onal br i efi ng oror al ar gum enton t he uns et t l ed l egal ques t i on i s i l l

- advi s ed. 82
T he M aj or i t yal s o s h o u ld n othave r ever s ed the D i s t r i ct C our tw i t houtgi vi ng itan oppor tuni t yt o m ake a ddi t i onal fi ndi n g s i n l i g h t o f t h e n e w c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t a n n o u n c e d by th e M a jo rity

. T h e D istric t C o u rt c lea rlyb e liev e d th a t th e a b ili ty to e sta b lish su c h p ro c e d u re s fo r j u ry se lec tio n w a s w ith in in itsSee, e. g. , G al l v. U n it edSt at es , 128 S. C t
. 586, 597 83 ( 2007) ( “The fac tt hatt he appe l l at e courtm i ghtr eas onabl yhave c o n c lu d e d th a t a d if f e r e n t se n ten c e w a s a p p ro p ria te is in su f f icie n t to ju stif

yre v e rsa l o f th e d istric t c o u rt.”). In d e e d , if th is w e re a se n ten c in g c a se in w h ich a d istric t co u rt f a iled to g iv e su f f icie n t re a so n s to w a rra n t a v a ria n c e , w e w o u ld v a c a te t he s ent ence and r emand foraddi ti onal r eas oni ng s uppor t i ng s u c h a v a ri a n c e . S e e , e .g ., U ni t ed Stat es v. Kononchuk , 485 F. 3d 199, 206 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( vaca t i ng t he defenda nt ’ s s ent ence and r emandi ng fora new s ent ence w i t h addi t i onal expl anat i on aft er det erm i ni ng t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t’ s cons i der at i on and e x p l a n a t i o n o f

t h e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c t o r s w a s i n s u f

f i c i e n t )

. We w oul d not , nor have w e ever , r emanded and or der ed the di s t r i ct c o u rt to im p o s e a p a rt ic u la r s e n te n c e . See G r eenlaw v. U ni t ed St at es , 554 U

. S.

— ( 2008) ( hol di ng t hatabs entgovernm ent a p p e a l o r c ro ss -a p p e a l, ap p e llate c o u rts c a n n o t su a sp o n te incre ase a d ef

e n d a n t’ s sen tenc e, ev en if t h e d istri ct co u rt c o m m itt e d p ro c e d u ra l er ro r in c a lcu latin g th e a p p ro p ria te s ent ence )

. A ddi t i onal l y , w e w oul d nothave a l l ow ed an a ppeal befor e the di s t r i ctcour thad eve n i m pos ed s ent ence . 114 di s cr et i on. T her e is l i t t l e i n t he r ecor d t hats ugges t s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tw as aw ar e that t he medi a’ s i nt er es ti n know i ng t he n am es of t he p rospect i ve jur ors w as prot ect ed as a cons t i tut i onal r i ght , and thus i tdi d notana ly ze t he M edi aI nt er venor s ’ m ot i on under t he m or e r i gor ous Fi r s tA m endment t es t
. E ffe ct i vel y , t he M aj or i ty subst i tut es i t s j udgm entfort hat o f th e D istric t C o u rt, w h ich is c lea r ly in a b e tter p o sitio n to j udge the pr obl ems t hatm ayar i s e. W e s houl d notm i cr om an ag e asp ec ts of

d istri ct co u rtp roc ee d ing s tha t are tra d iti o n a llyw ith in th e d isc re tio n o f th o se c o u r ts
. S im p ly bec au se w e mi ghthave done ot herw i s e i f w e w er e the tr i al j udges does notm ean t hatt he ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e do not w arr ants uch ac t i on. 83115 A s t hi s C our thas not ed, “‘ [a] cr i m i nal t r i al i s , even i n t he bes tof ci r cumst ance s , a compl i cat ed af fai rt o m anage . ’ ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. R i vera , 384 F. 3d 49, 55 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Jorn , 400 U

. S. 470, 479- 80 ( 1971) )

. B yhol di ng t oday t hatt he m ed ia has a r i ghtt o t he i dent i t i es of the j ur or s t hat at t ache s befor e empanel m ent , and byper m i t t i ng appea l s of al l eged de pr i vat ion s of t hatr i ghton an i nt er l ocut or ybas i s , t he M ajorityh an d cu ff

s the d istri ct co u rt s an d m ak es itall the m o re di ffi cul tfordi s t r i ctj udges t o m anage t he compl exi t i es of cri m i nal tri al s. In ef

fect , t he M aj ori t yt od ayel evates al m ost e v e r y voirdir e pr ocedur e the medi a fi nds i nconveni entt o a cons t i tut i onal i s s ue. I n addi t i on, t he M aj or i t ydr aw s a l i ne d eli n ea ti n g w h en the “righ t” to k n o w the iden ti ti es o f th e juro rs purpor t edl yat t ach es, d espi t e a gr eatdeal of ca s e l aw and pr act i ce t hat s ugges t s t hat no s uch r i ghtexi s t s ort hati f the r i ght does exi s t , i tcan be ful l yvi ndi cat ed at a lat er ti m e. A nd t he M aj or i t ydoes al l of thi s w i t houtar gum entoraddi t i onal br i efi ng as to w hetherdecl ar i ng t he exi s t ence of thi s r i ghti s cons i s t ent w i t h tr adit i on al pract i ces. W e sh o u ld h a v e c h a rte d a m u c h m o re c a u tio u s c o u rse in l i ghtof t he admi t t edl y uncl ear s t at e of the l aw on t hi s ques t i on. R athe r th an ac t i n so h ast ya f ash ion an d w ith o u t m o re i nformat i on and del i ber at i on, w e s houl d have r emanded t he i s s ue t o t he D i s t r i ct C our tforaddi t i onal fac t
- fi ndi ng i n l i ghtof t he new l y - announce d cons t i tut i onal pr ot ect i on for acc es s t o t he id e n tit ies o f

p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro rs. T h e D istric t C o u rt, an d n o t th is C our t , i s m os tfami l i arw i t h t he part i cul ar i s s ues s ur r oundi ng t he c o n d u c t o f

th e trial a n d th e p re ss u re s fa c in g ju ro rs. W e sh o u ld gi ve som e cr edi t t o t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s eval uat i on of the “l ocalA s w e h a v e n o ted, w e sh o u ld d ef er to the tr ial co u rt 84 j udge’ s eval uat i on of t he need t o pr ot ectt he j ur or s , as he i s “on t he s cene an d [has] a vant age poi nts uper i ort o our s . ” See Shi om os , 864 F. 2d at18. T he M aj or i t yr ecogni ze s as m uch, no t i ng t hat “dis t ri ctj ud ges are w el l -posi t i on ed to add res s these r i s ks on a cas e- by

- cas e bas i s , and i n s uch cases, to m ake par t i cul ar i zed f

i ndi ngs on t he r ecor d

. . . . ” See M a j. O p ., supra , at41. D es pi t e thi s r ecogni t i on, t he M aj or i t y aff or ds t he D i s t r i ct C our tal m os tno defe r ence i n i t s r evi ew o f t he nee d t o pr ot ect t he j ur or s i n t hi s cas e. A tt he veryl eas t , t hi s C our ts houl d have defe r r ed 85 jud g m en t on the issu e o f w h ethe r th e M ed ia-Interve n o rs are e n t i t l e d t o t h e n a me s o f t h e j u r o r s u n t i l a f

t e rt h e t r i a l , a twhi ch poi ntt he i nt er es ti n pr ot ect i ng t he j ur or s i s l es s per s uas i ve. 116 a m b ien c e ” su rro u n d in g th e trial o f D r. W e c h t. 84
T h e D istri ct C o u rttoo k the a cti o n s itb eli ev ed w ere n e c e ss a ryto e f

f e c tiv e ly p ro tec t th e v a rio u s c o m p e tin g in ter e sts and r i ght s i m pl i cat ed bys uch a publ i c and l engthyt r i al

. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d notbe doomed and co n t r ol l ed i n t he conductof i t s t r i al m er el ybeca us e i t fai l ed t o ar t i cul at e cl ear er rea so n s to sa ti sfya stan d ard itco u ld n o t h a v e b ee n aw are exi s t ed bef

or e t oday ’ s opi ni on. I f the r efus al t o di s cl os e the names of the pr os pect i ve j ur or s pr i or t o t he empanel m entof the j ur yi s now a const i tut i onal vi ol at i on, as t he M aj or i t y ’ s hol di ng e sta b lish e s, th e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld h a v e th e o p p o rtu n ityto m o d if yits tr ia l p ro c e d u re s to c o m p o rt w ith th is n e w ru le

. 85
V.
A s I hav e set for t h i n t he pr ece di ng s ect i ons , I di s s ent117 fr om t he M aj o ri ty ’ s hol di ng on a numberof gr ounds

. I do not b e liev e th a t an o rd e r se tti n g f o r th trial p ro c e d u re s is g e n e ra lly appea l abl e as a col l at er al or der , nord o I bel i eve thatt he or der at i ssu e in th is case is suf ficien tl yfin al su c h that interl o cu tory r evi ew i s w arr ant ed. A ddi t i onal l y , I di s agr ee w i t h t he M aj or i t y ’ s anal y s i s of P ress -E n terp rise II, as i t ei t heri gnor es or m argi nali zes a st atute passed by C on gress , a greatdeal of case l aw , a hi s t or yof gi vi ng tr ial j udges s i gni fi cantdi s cr et i on over t he conduc tof j ur ys el ect i on, t he r ecomm endat i ons of the Ju d ici al C o n fe ren ce , an d the p rac ti ce s o f m an yo f this na ti o n ’s c o u rt s . In th is a g e o f

p e rv a siv e m e d ia c o v e ra g e , w h ich is n e c e ss a ry to e n su re th a t th e p u b lic is in f o rm e d a n d c a n sa tisf

yits d u tyo f o v e rse e in g th e ju d icia l p ro c e s s , it is c ritica l to p e rm it di s t r i ctcour t s t o do w hati s nece s s ary t o ens ur e thatt he j udi ci al sy ste m f u n c tio n s p ro p e rly

. If a n yth in g , g iv in g th e d istric t co u rts th e d iscreti o n to k ee p the id en ti ti es o f ju rors c o n fid en ti al fo r a p e rio d o f tim e sig n if

ica n tlya d v a n c e s th e g o a l o f e n su rin g a f

a ir an d im p arti al crim inal justi ce sy ste m . S e e Sc a rfo , 850 F. 2d at 1 0 2 3 ; s e e al

s o Shep pa rd , 384 U

. S. at362- 63. T he D i s t r i ct C ou rt ’s voirdir e pr ocedur es s uffi ci ent l yb al ance t he var i ous and o f ten c o m p e tin g in ter e sts im p lica te d b ysu c h h ig h -p ro f ile cr i m i nal t r i al s , and t he pr ocedur es i ts el ect ed ar e fa rl es s oner ous th a n s e q u e s te ri n g th e ju ry w o u ld b e . S e e G a n n e tt , 571 A

. 2d at 751. I cannot s uppor t t he M aj or i t y ’ s deci s i on t o m i cr o- m anage t he v oi rdir e pr ocedur es of the W echtt r i al byvaca t i ng t he D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er.
In m y op i nion, t he D i stri ctC ou rtshou l d, i n the exerci se of i t s di s cr et i on, r el eas e the names of the pr os pect i ve j ur or s w ho w er e nots el ect ed f

o r th e tr i al j ur yfol l ow i ng t he s eat i ng of the118 t r i al j ur y . I hol d t hi s opi ni on beca us e I bel i eve t hat i n l i ghtof t he fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e, s uch ac t i on w oul d be an a p p ro p ria te e x e r c ise o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s d isc re tio n . W ith reg ard to the n am es o f th e a ctua l tri al j u rors, th e D istri ct C o u rt i s ent i t l ed t o keep the names of the tr i al j ur o rs conf i dent i al dur i ng t he tr i al

. I expr es s no opi ni on as t o w hethert he names of t he tr i al j urors sh o u l d b e rel eased aftert he tr i al , w hetheras a m at t er of cons t i tut i onal r i ght or t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s cr et i on, t hough I not e t hat t he r eas ons i thas s etfor t h forconce al i ng t he i dent i t i es of the tr i al j ur or s become l es s per s uas i ve once t he tr i al is c o m p le te d

. S e e C a

p ita l C iti e s Me d ia , In c . v. T o o le , 46 3 U. S. 1303, 1306 ( 1983) ( “[T] he St at e’ s i nt ere st
. . . i n s hi el di ng j ur or s fr om pr es s ur e duri ng t he cour s e of the tr i al

. . . becomes a tten u a te d a f

ter [ th e v e rd ict].” ). I d o n o t m e a n to su g g e st, h o w e v e r, th a t th e D istric t C o u rt has t o do w hat I have s ugges t ed beca us e the C ons t i tut i on r equi r es it. T h e C o n stitu tio n d o e s n o t, a s t h e M a

jo ri ty su g g e s ts , requir e pr e- empanel m entdi s cl os ur e; t hus , t he M aj or i t y ’ s inva s i on of the tr adi t i onal r eal m of the di s t r i ctcour t s ’ di s cr et i on i s notj us t i fi ed.
B ecause I cann o t jo in i n an op i nion t hat w i l l cause so m anyproblem s i n our dis t ri ct cou rt s, t hat es t abli shes a new cl ass of i nt er l ocut or yor der s , t hateff ect i vel ycreates a new cons t i tut i onal r i ght , and t hats et s a pr ece dentof perm i t t i ng our C our tt o m i cr o- m anage t r i al pr o ce d u r es es t abl i s hed byt he d istric t co u rts, I re sp e c tf u llyd iss e n t.