Opinion ID: 1947022
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Post Conviction Order

Text: Once the trial is completed and the completion involves any role that the jury might assume in regard to post-conviction motions, the circuit court loses authority to restrict any access by or with jurors of any sort. Clearly the post-conviction remedy at the trial level would expire upon the filing of a notice of appeal, which is automatic in death cases. Consequently, the Court of Appeals was correct in vacating the order of the circuit court because the trial was complete. An appeal was pending and the circuit court lacked authority to control the conduct of jurors or any other individual, including the public or press, in regard to contact. We find it unnecessary to address any of the arguments presented either on appeal or cross-appeal in regard to the post-conviction order. We make no attempt to indicate all conditions of no contact which a court may or may not impose. However, the authority of the court to impose prior restrictions on First Amendment rights is limited; such restraint must be exercised in response to specific and compelling reasons and tailored to particular needs. Naturally, nothing in this opinion prevents the circuit court from advising jurors by letter that they are fully released from the protection thought to be afforded by the post-conviction order. Obviously, the court could advise the former jurors that they had no obligation to talk to anyone and that they could simply refuse to speak. Nothing in this opinion should be considered as requiring jurors to speak to the media or anyone else. A juror may speak or remain silent as he or she wishes. There is nothing to prevent former jurors from reporting actual harassment or intimidation to police authorities for appropriate protection or other remedy as may be required. A former juror can also pursue a private civil remedy if actual harassment or intimidation arises.