Appeals Court rules jury questionnaires are public records | Eastern NC Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    Case has significant implications for the Washington Police Department and City Council

    A Federal appeals court in Washington has ruled that the public has a right to know what jurors put on questionnaires given them during the jury selection process for a criminal trial. The case itself was famous--that of a man found guilty of killing Congressional intern Chandra Levy in a wooded park in the District of Columbia. So the trial got a lot of attention because a congressman was associated with it.

    Consequently, the trial judge sealed the questionnaires and refused to release them to the press, even with the jurors' names redacted. The Appeals Court overturned the judge's order and required release of the information.

    You can read more about the case by clicking here.

    This case is not greatly different from the issue created by the City of Washington when it has refused to release video made by police cars. Washington uses the excuse that the videos may be a part of a police "investigation." The Beaufort Observer has contended that it accepts that police investigation records are not public records as long as the investigation/trial is taking place but that once the investigation is closed or the trial over with that such records become public records. The Washington City Manager, supported by the City Attorney and council disagree and refuse to release the records, even after the investigation is finished.

    We would contend that this case is ample reason for Washington to review and revise its policy. If an appellant court has ruled that something as sensitive to the judicial process as the details of jury selection can be sealed only until the trial is over then we would suggest that a video of an incident that did not even result in a trial is certainly not something that necessitates keeping secret.

    Moreover, we would suggest that the public has an even more compelling interest in knowing how its police officers perform than it does in how jurors in a particular case filled out a questionnaire. The video provides not only insight into the performance of officers but also provide a higher level of accountability that is healthy for law enforcement, both in preventing rogue cops for abusing their authority but also in help instill public confidence in the honorable officers who do a good job for their community day in and day out and have nothing to hide.

    The pure suspicion that is created by hiding these videos does much more damage, on balance, that would come from releasing those records.

    The appellant court was correct in coming down on the side of transparency in the judicial process. The Washington City Council should do the same.