Court Opinion

ID: 9732088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:07:07.686083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:23.064981
License: Public Domain

NARES, J., Concurring.
Absent excuse, citizens are required to attend jury service for nominal remuneration ($5 per day) and one-way mileage. Compelled by United States Supreme Court precedent, today we order (in future cases) the potential public release of sensitive personal information obtained not by consent, but by compulsion.
The questionnaire seeks highly personal information from each prospective juror. For example, the questionnaire asks, “Have you ever sought any type of counseling for problems in a marriage from someone such as a priest ....?” Another question asks, “Do you believe that the lives of some people are more important than others?” Question 177 states, ‘Did or does either of your parents use alcohol or drugs to excess?” and another states, “Were you the victim of child molestation or other forms of child abuse. If yes, how has that affected you in your adult life?”
The majority attempts to safeguard the prospective jurors’ privacy rights—rights it acknowledges have constitutional dimensions—by requiring a nonconfidentiality warning be placed in the “body of the questionnaire.” Given the potential intrusion into a prospective juror’s personal life, *91in my view, merely a written warning in the “body” is insufficient. First, the written warning should be placed in the questionnaire’s introduction and should be printed in bold type.
Second, in addition to the written warning endorsed by the majority, before distributing the questionnaire, the trial court should orally alert the prospective jurors their responses are not confidential and will be accessible by newspapers, radio, television, and all other forms of print or electronic media. The trial court should orally advise prospective jurors that if they believe public disclosure of their answer to particular questions may be embarrassing or otherwise infringe on their privacy rights, they should ask for a hearing in chambers before answering the question(s). The court should further orally instruct prospective jurors that the attorneys and court reporter will be present during any such chambers proceeding, and that their request for confidentiality does not insure the answer will remain confidential.
With this additional safeguard, and compelled by the authorities cited in the majority opinion, I concur.
Respondent’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied May 23, 1991.