Sunshine Laws Burn Casey Anthony Jurors

by Diane Dimond on October 31, 2011

Can There Be Too Much Sunshine?

Every state has laws that govern the public’s access to government records. From New Mexico to North Dakota – Alabama to Alaska – each have varying degrees of these so-called Sunshine Laws. The media loves Sunshine Laws because they allow easy access to information. But many on the other end of the equation don’t feel so “sunshine-y” about having their business or personal information revealed to the public. There is no state more liberal in doling out government information than Florida — nicknamed the Sunshine State — and in my opinion their Public Records Law has now put some of their own citizens at risk.

Fla. Chief Judge Belvin Perry

Specifically, I’m talking about the 17 men and women randomly chosen as jurors and alternates to sit in judgment at the notorious murder trial of Casey Anthony. Florida has now revealed their identities to the public in the name of open government. Chief Judge Belvin Perry didn’t think it was a good idea. He presided over the trial that ended with 25 year old Casey Anthony acquitted of murdering her 2 ½ year old daughter, Caylee. Perry knew state law obliged him to reveal the names of the jurors after the verdict but in an extraordinary move he ordered a 3-month cooling off period.

Anthony Jury Sat Here Anonymously

“It is clear,” the judge wrote in an eloquent 12 page decision, “the jurors in this case face the possibility of substantial injury if their names are immediately made public.” Quite an understatement, I’d say. The moment the verdict was broadcast on live television on the afternoon of July 5th 2011, massive outrage at the jury decision erupted. Outside the Orange County Courthouse in Orlando one protestor held a homemade sign that read: “Juror 1-12 Guilty of Murder!!!” The more that breathless cable TV hosts reported the anti-jury sentiment the more it grew.

Jury Attacked Immediately Outside Courthouse

The ferocious reaction quickly spread across the internet too. On-line petitions sprang up within hours and were signed by 1.3 million people. One called for the federal government to re-try Anthony on federal charges, another pleaded for new laws to mandate immediate police reports of missing children. (Caylee had not been seen for a month when the Sheriff was finally notified.) The sheer numbers of people involved was a testament to the public’s fury over the jury’s verdict. The jurors were quietly bussed back to their homes where they, basically, kept a low profile ever since. To this day the emotional and sometimes violent reaction continues.

The "Justice For Caylee" Movement is Nationwide

Every time there is a development in the case – from Anthony’s probation meetings to unconfirmed reports that she is selling her story to a TV network or book publisher – messages excoriating the jury wash over the World Wide Web. This group is organized in its communications and marketing of “Justice For Caylee” merchandise. Some have called for the jurors to be killed. Thanks to Florida’s very Public Records Law there are now 17 citizens waiting to see if releasing their identities will lead determined cyber sleuths to discover their home addresses and phone numbers. One of the former jurors is a 70-something year old mother of three who lives with her elderly boyfriend. There is a 60-ish African American woman who said during jury selection she was uncomfortable judging other people, that God should be the final judge.

Who Could Harm This Child?

One female retiree has already fled the state telling law enforcement she had received death threats and would “rather go to jail” than ever serve on a jury again. There is a high school government teacher who said he relished jury duty on the Anthony case so he could use it as a teachable lesson for his students. Wonder if he’s still so glad he was chosen?  And, there are several panelists who have small children at home and now worry – are we safe? Prominent Florida attorney Mark NeJame followed the Anthony case closely and believes the Anthony jurors are at risk.

Attorney Mark NeJame Says Threat is Real

“High profile cases are becoming interactive with the public, who watch and comment in real time and who become enthralled with a case,” said NeJame. “Since the trial is being watched by all, including some with mental issues, miscreants and vigilante types, the risk of danger to a juror in such cases clearly increases.” Judge Perry’s cooling off order mentioned every juror’s constitutional right to privacy and he made a point of saying they “were essentially voiceless” regarding the release of their names. The judge urged the state legislature to review the law to see if it might be doing more harm than good. No lawmaker has stepped up to the challenge.

Few Are Anxious To Serve

It seems to me we already have a heck of a problem getting citizens excited about jury service. This example gives the wary another excuse to want to dodge the duty. Who in their right mind would want to serve if, in the end, the reward is public scorn and death threats? Sometimes, I believe, a judge should be able to withhold the names of jurors for safety reasons. As someone who has built her career relying on First Amendment Rights and the free flow of information I don’t say this lightly: Sometimes too much sunshine can blind you. home

{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }

Diane Dimond October 31, 2011 at 8:39 pm

Facebook Friend Ginnie Oleskewicz Schwartz writes:

“I feel the jurors names should not have been released………..they did their civic duty not knowing what we (the public) knew they made the decision based on what they heard in court……imo the state did not use enough about the chloroform or motive……..hurting these people that did what they were asked to do is wrong…..two wrongs do not make a right……….RIP Little Angel Caylee Marie.”

Reply

Diane Dimond October 31, 2011 at 8:40 pm

Facebook Friend Eric Vaughan writes:

“I remember a story about an undercover cop telling a judge that “they’ll have the money for you next week.” The judge replied, “You guys still owe me 2 grand from last month.” Jury members should be told that their identities may be placed in the public domain in the event of a controversial verdict. Those acquitting the police in Simi Valley were looking out for their own interests because of a flood of violent crime. Those acquitting the Casey bimbo didn’t like the state using overkill to come across as the hero of the common man. If you can’t find a jury that’ll submit to that, the trial should take place elsewhere.”

Reply

Diane Dimond October 31, 2011 at 8:42 pm

Facebook Friends Linda Jackson writes:

“BUT maybe knowing people might learn who they REALLY are might make them more accountable? At least pay ATTENTION during a murder trial? IMO they “anonymously” let a killer walk free.”

Reply

Diane Dimond October 31, 2011 at 8:42 pm

Facebook Friend Tim Tyrrell writes:

“Linda, I’m pretty sure you didn’t sit on that jury, so you can’t sit in their shoes to know why they decided on their verdict. You saying they let a killer walk free is why they are fearing for their safety. They did their civic duty and while we may not agree, we weren’t in their shoes and can’t judge them. I thank them for sitting on a jury while most people use any excuse to get out of it.”

Reply

Diane Dimond October 31, 2011 at 8:43 pm

Facebook Friend Joyce Truett writes:

“I don’t consider myself that big of an idiot…like the jury in the CA trial…that damn jury wanted to go on vacation!!! and /or get the hell out.”

Reply

Diane Dimond October 31, 2011 at 8:44 pm

Facebook Friend Jean Love Porter writes:

“Thats true joyce…they DID NOT deliberate…and YES a baby killer walked free…I dont understand why they are hiding. You made your decisions…maybe you regret now!!! i also bet sooner or later we’ll hear jury tampering!!!”

Reply

Todd October 31, 2011 at 9:51 pm

Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.

Have we already forgotten the lessons of history? What about the infamous STAR chamber of England? That is why the Founding Fathers created the Sixth Amendment, along with the First Amendment right of access to criminal trials and jury selection.

Anonymous jurors are just one step away from fake jurors.

Besides, in this age of the internet, how could a court truely keep someone anonymous? All a person has to do is take a picture, post it, and ask “does anyone know who this person is?”

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: