TheNewsMedia&TheLawSummer2016

CONTENTS

COVERSTORY

ClintonhistoricallywaryofthepressTrump'srecordtroublesFirstAmendmentadvocatesPence'stransparencyrecordprovokesmixedreactionsKaineemailsreveallittlemorethanacarefulgovernor

FREEDOMOFINFORMATION

WhattheFOIAreformactmeanstoyouNEWSGATHERING

Anatomy of a brief: Reporters Committee supports challenges to"ag-gag"statutes

SECRETCOURTS

Therightofaccesstojurornamesandaddresses

PublishedbyTheReportersCommitteeforFreedomofthePressEditorsBruceD.Brown,GreggP.Leslie,DebraGershHernandezStaffKevinDelaney,MichaelLambert,AdamMarshall,KatieTownsend,CaitlinVogus,LuisFerré,SophieMurguiaAdministrationLoisLloydSteeringCommitteeStephenJ.Adler,ReutersScottApplewhite,TheAssociatedPressWolfBlitzer,CNNDavidBoardman,TempleUniversityChipBok,CreatorsSyndicateMichaelDuffy,TimeRichardS.Dunham,TsinghuaUniversity,Beijing

AshleaEbeling,ForbesMagazineMannyGarcia,USATODAYNETWORKAlexGibney,JigsawProductionsSusanGoldberg,NationalGeographicJamesGrimaldi,TheWallStreetJournalLauraHandman,DavisWrightTremaineJohnC.Henry,FreelanceKarenKaiser,TheAssociatedPressDavidLauter,LosAngelesTimesDahliaLithwick,SlateMargaretLow,TheAtlanticTonyMauro,NationalLawJournalJaneMayer,TheNewYorkerAndreaMitchell,NBCNewsScottMontgomery,NPRMaggieMulvihill,BostonUniversityJamesNeff,PhiladelphiaMediaNewsCarolRosenberg,TheMiamiHeraldThomasC.Rubin,Seattle,Wash.CharlieSavage,TheNewYorkTimesBenSmith,BuzzFeedJenniferSondag,BloombergNewsPierreThomas,ABCNewsSaundraTorry,USATodayJudyWoodruff,PBS/TheNewsHourSeniorAdvisorPaulSteiger,ProPublicaAffiliationsappearforpurposesofidentification.©2016by theReportersCommittee forFreedomof thePress.Publishedfourtimesayear.Addresscorrespondenceto:TheNewsMediaandTheLaw,115615thSt.NW,Suite1250,Washington,D.C.20005Telephone:(202)795-9300E-mail:magazine@rcfp.orgISSN:0149-0737

TheNewsMedia&TheLawSummer2016

TrackingFOIAProjectsNeedhelp trackingyour FOIA requests?Be sure touse theReporters

Committee's iFOIA service, a free system that handles FOIA requests byemailandkeepseverythingorganizedforyou.

Tolearnmore,viewourtutorialorgostraighttoiFOIA.org.

APPhoto/MattRourkeHillaryClintonatacampaignstopinRochester,N.Y.inJanuary2016.

TheNewsMedia&TheLaw·CoverStory

ClintonhistoricallywaryofthepressByLuisFerreSadurni

In March, Democraticpresidential candidate HillaryClinton told CNBC that she hasbeen “the most transparent publicofficialinmoderntimes,asfarasIknow.” Some observers maydisagree.

As Election Day nears, therearequestionsabouthowaccessiblea Clinton administration would beto the press and, ultimately, to theAmericanpublic.LongtimepoliticalobservershavechronicledClinton’sturbulent relationship with the media, portraying her as private andcontrolling of information, and questioning her commitment to realtransparency.

Journalists covering the campaign have grown frustrated withClinton'sinaccessibility,specificallyhighlightingthemore than250dayssincesheheldaformalpressconferenceonDec.4,2015inIowa.Further,accordingtoDanMericaofCNN,in2016Clintonhadheldonly11pressgaggles,orinformalinteractionswiththemedia,throughtheendofJuly.SheheldanotheraboardhercampaignplaneinearlySeptember.

TheClintoncampaign,however,pointsoutthatshehasgivenhundredsof one-on-one interviews to reporters during the campaign. Clintonpollster Joel Benenson told ABC News during the Democratic NationalConvention, “She has answered hundreds, if not thousands, of questionsfrom reporters in one-on-one interviews. . . . We’ll have a pressconferencewhenwewanttohaveapressconference.There’snoproblemwiththat.ButtheAmericanpeoplehearfromherdirectlyeveryday.They

get to ask her questions every day. And she answers questions fromjournalists.”

MediacolumnistMargaretSullivanofTheWashingtonPostwrotethatalthoughit isprobablyasmartstrategicmoveforClintontoavoidpressconferences,Clintonowesittotheelectoratetospeakpubliclyandanswertoughquestions.“So,yes,thesmartplaymightbetocontinuetostonewall.Or continue tooffer the carefully selected interviews she’sbeendoing,”Sullivanwrote.“That’ssafe.Butit’snotright.”

TheClintoncampaigndidnot responda request forcommenton thestory.

Media reporters note that press conferences provide an unscripted,high-pressuresettingthatallowsjournaliststoasktoughquestions.

“It’s important to see how the candidate reacts in a setting like that,”PoliticomediareporterHadasGoldsaid.“It’sreallytoughhavingdozensofpeopleinfrontofyouaskingquestions,alltryingtonailyoudownonsomething. . . . It’s a much different environment than a one-on-oneinterviewwhereyouhavemorecontroloverthesituation.”

DavidCuillier,directorof theJournalismSchoolat theUniversityofArizonaandaformerpresidentoftheSocietyofProfessionalJournalists,pointed out that press conferences can expose a candidate to politicalvulnerabilities.

“Allittakesisoneslipofthetongue,oneoff-handcomment,andallofasuddenyou’redownacoupleofpercentagepointsinthepolls,”Cuilliersaid,addingthatnevertheless,pressconferencesare“anavenueforpeopletolearnabouttheirpresidentialcandidates.”

Clinton’s apparent aversion to press conferences, critics note,highlightsherprivatenature,hertendencytocontrolinformation,andherpolitical strategy. Many media reporters don’t expect to see a shift inClinton’spressaccessibilityshouldshewinthepresidency.

“Itdoesletusknowhowsheisgoingtobeifsheiselected,”SullivantoldtheReportersCommittee.“Idon’t thinkthatshe isgoingto,allofasudden, turnaroundandsayalotof thingsthataregoingtogether intotrouble.Ithinkthatsheisgoingtobeopaqueandguarded.”

NoneofthisshouldbesurprisingtothosewhohavewatchedClinton’spastinteractionswiththenewsmedia.

“I thinkHillaryClintonhaskept themediaatbay fordecades,goingback to Whitewater and the scandals of the 1990s,” said Michael

Calderone,seniormediareporterofTheHuffingtonPost.“Itisn’tnewforhertokeepthemediaback.”

As first lady,Clinton ranupagainst transparencyadvocateswhen theHealthCareReformTaskForceshechairedfailedtodiscloserecordsandmeetpubliclyunder theFederalAdvisoryCommitteeAct.TheReportersCommittee and othermedia organizations filed an amicus brief seekingaccess, which was granted in 1994 after a federal judge ruled the taskforce’smeetingsandrecordsbeopen.Sanctionswerelaterleviedagainstthe adminitsrationby a federal judge for “misconduct” in responding totheopengovernmentaction.

The Bill Clinton administration was peppered with the years-longWhitewaterinvestigation,andpoliticalandpersonalscandalsthatresultedin what has been called a generally “toxic” relationship with the WhiteHousepresscorps.

AssenatorfromNewYork,Clintonpushedforlegislationthatwouldmakegovernmentmoretransparent.DuringhereightyearsintheSenate,Clinton co-sponsored at least three unsuccessful bills that would havemade government more open, including one to ensure greatertransparencyinthefederalcontractingprocess.

During the 2008 presidential primaries, Clinton responded to aSunshine Week questionnaire about open government issues. “Thereshould be a presumption of openness, and Iwould instructmyAttorneyGeneral to press all agencies to release information if disclosurewoulddonoharm,”shewrote.

ButClinton’swarinessofthenewsmediacontinuedintohertenureattheStateDepartment,althoughaPoliticohistoryofher relationshipwiththe media noted Clinton had a more relaxed relationship with the StateDepartmentpresscorps.

When the The New York Times revealed that she had used a privateemail server for official communications as secretary of state, Clintoncameunderfireforaperceivedlackoftransparency,amongotherthings.AlthoughClintonasked theStateDepartment to releaseherwork-relatede-mails, critics raised questions over the deletion of nearly 31,000personalemails.TheFBIclearedherofanywrongdoinginthematterinearlyJuly.

“Ithinkoneofthebigconcernsofreporters,ifthey’reconsideringaClintonpresidency,ishowmuchaccessthey’regoingtoget,”Calderone

said.“Ithinktheemailcontroversyshowshowreluctantsheistocedeanycontroloverinformation.EvenifwhatHillaryClintondidwasn’tillegal,itcertainlywasn’ttransparent.”

Whenitcomestohertaxreturns,Clintonboastsaconsistentrecordofmakingherrecordspublic.Althoughdisclosingtaxreturnsisnotrequiredbylaw,Clintonandherhusbandhavemadepublicnearlyfourdecadesoftaxreturns.

But some journalists are concerned that press accessibility andgovernmenttransparencywillbeanuphillbattlefornewsmedianomatterwhoiselectedpresident.

"ItotallypredictthatwhoeverisintheWhiteHouse,it'sgoingtobeatoughfouryearsforthepressandthepublic,”Cuilliersaid.“Idon'tseethefederalgovernment,theexecutivebranchopeningupwhenJanuarycomesaround.”

APPhoto/MaryAltaffer,FileDonaldTrumpatacampaignstopatBriarcliffManor,N.Y.inJune2016.

TheNewsMedia&TheLaw·CoverStory

Trump'srecordtroublesFirstAmendmentadvocatesBySophieMurguia

In some ways, Donald Trumpmaybeoneof themostaccessiblepresidential candidates in recenthistory. But his record on pressfreedom and transparency hasraised serious alarm amongjournalists and open governmentadvocates.

The Republican nomineefrequentlyholdspressconferencesand gives one-on-one interviews,andhehasenjoyedhisabilitytogetfreemediaattention.InaninterviewwithBloomberg,Trumpsaidhehad“no reason” tomeet his original $1 billion fundraising goal because hewasreceivingsomuchfreemedia.

“I justdon’t thinkIneednearlyasmuchmoneyasotherpeopleneedbecauseIgetsomuchpublicity,”TrumptoldBloomberg.“Igetsomanyinvitationstobeontelevision.Igetsomanyinterviews,ifIwantthem.”AJunereport from the research groupmediaQuant found that Trump hadreceivedfreemediaworthalmost$3.5billioninthepastyear,comparedtojustover$1.4billionforHillaryClinton.

At the same time, Trump has revoked press credentials frommediaorganizations whose coverage he characterizes as unfair, promised tomake it easier to sue journalists for libel and brokenwith longstandingtraditionbyrefusing to releasehis taxreturns. (Hiscampaignreportedlyreinstated the credentials in early September for about a dozenorganizationsthathadbeenbanned.)

In a recent article forThe Atlantic, political journalist Ron Fournier

called Trump “the least transparent presidential candidate in modernhistory,” citing Trump’s history of making false claims as well as hisvaguenessonpolicypositionsandhishostilitytowardthepress.

“He has an extremely unusual love-hate relationshipwith the press,”said Dick Polman, a national political columnist for NewsWorks andformer political reporter for thePhiladelphiaInquirer. “He’s vindictive,but by the same token he craves the access, he craves the visibility, hecravestheattentionofthepressmorethananyoneI’veseenbefore.”

The Trump campaign press office did not respond to a ReportersCommitteeemailinvitingcommentwithalistofquestionsaboutTrump’spositionsonFirstAmendmentissues.

Politico, Buzzfeed, The Washington Post, The Huffington Post andUnivisionareamongtheorganizationsthathavebeenrefusedcredentialstocoverthecampaign—orhadthemrevoked.TrumpsuggestedinJunethat hemight addTheNew York Times to the blacklist, though he didn'tfollowthrough.

Sometimes, the bans have been announced, as was the case in Junewhen Trump said on Facebook that he would revoke The WashingtonPost’s credentials. Trump criticized a headline on thePost’s website thatoriginally read,“DonaldTrumpsuggestsPresidentObamawas involvedwithOrlandoshooting.”(Itwaslaterchangedto“DonaldTrumpseemstoconnectPresidentObamatoOrlandoshooting.”)

“Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of therecord-setting Trump campaign, we are hereby revoking the presscredentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post,” Trump’sFacebookpostsaid.

At other times, reporters have been denied access to Trump eventswithoutexplanation,althoughthebanshaveoftencomeshortlyafternewsorganizations have published material that is critical or unflatteringtowardTrump.

Thebanshavenotalwaysbeenconsistentlyenforced.IntheweeksafterthePost’scredentialswererevoked,forexample,Trumpgave interviewstoWashingtonPostreporters.

Most reporters who are denied credentials simply enter events asmembers of the public, but there have been incidents when they wereprohibitedfromdoingthat.InJune,aPoliticoreporterwasaskedtoleavea Trump rally in California. And in late July, a journalist from The

WashingtonPostwaspatteddownandrefusedentrytoaMikePenceeventinWisconsin.

“Oureventsareopentoeveryoneandwearelookingintotheallegedincident,”Pence’sspokesmanMarcLottertoldTheAssociatedPress.

Hadas Gold, a media reporter forPolitico, said that although beingdenied entry to events won’t prevent a good journalist from getting astory,itcanmakereportingmoredifficult.

“Itdelaysyourreporting,andifyoucan’tbeinsidethearena,youcan’tgaugetheaudience’sreactiontothecandidate,”Goldsaid.

InaninterviewwithCNN,Trumpsaidthatifhewereelectedhewouldnot revoke credentials from any White House reporters. Still, manyjournalistsaretroubledbyTrump’smediablacklist.

“This idea of singling out organizations that anger him is a terribledevelopment, and it’s consistent with other ways that he is showing hishostility to the press,” Polman said. Polman, who has been coveringpresidentialelectionssince1988,saidhehasneverseenanothercampaignwithholdpresscredentialsthewayTrump’shas.

“I think it’s a very troubling sign that says he doesn’t actuallyunderstand or value the role of the press inAmerican democracy,” saidWashington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan, who has sharplycriticizedTrump’smediablacklistinhercolumn.

JournalistsarealsoconcernedaboutcommentsTrumpmadeatarallyin February, when he promised to change libel law so that it would beeasiertosuemediaorganizations.

“I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposelynegativeandhorribleandfalsearticles,wecansue themandwin lotsofmoney,”hesaid.

Trump’s statement has beenwidely dismissed by criticswho say thatthepresidenthaslittlepowertounilaterallychangelibellaw.

There is no federal libel statute, leaving states to determine whatconstitutes libel.Short of convincingCongress topass a libel statute, orbringingacasethroughthecourtsinthehopeofafavorablerulingintheU.S. Supreme Court — which has limited the reach of libel law,particularlyincasesinvolvingpublicofficialsandotherpublicfigures—Trumphasfewoptions.

“Apresident certainly canwield an influencevery indirectly, but thisideathathe’sgoingtosomehowissueanexecutiveorderaboutlibellaws

isveryunrealistic,andIthinkit’salsobluster,”Sullivansaid.“Idon’tthinkanyonecantakethatseriouslyatall,”saidDavidCuillier,

directoroftheUniversityofArizonaSchoolofJournalismandaformerpresidentoftheSocietyofProfessionalJournalists.“Thelibellawsaren’tgoingtochangeunderhim.Butit’sreallytheunderlyingmessagethathe’ssendingthatismoreconcerning—thathewantstomuzzlethemedia.”

Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns has been another point ofcontention.

Although not legally required, it has become common practice forcandidates to release their tax returns. IfTrumpdoesnot releasehis fulltax returns, he’ll be the first major party nominee not to do so sinceGeraldFordreleasedonlysummarydataduringhis1976presidentialbidnottodoso,accordingtoPunditFact.

Trumpinitiallyarguedthathecouldnotreleasehistaxreturnsbecausehe is undergoing a routine audit. IRS Commissioner John Koskinen,however, toldC-SPANthat therewasnoreasonanauditwouldpreventataxpayerfromreleasinghisreturns.Infact,PresidentNixondidsoin1973and a congressional investigation ultimately found he owed nearly$500,000inbacktaxesandpenalties,whichPunditFactestimateswouldbeabout$2.3milliontoday.

Trump has since revised his statement, claiming that “any lawyerwouldtellyou”thatitwouldbeunwisetoreleasetaxreturnswhileunderaudit.

“I think that if he were a normal taxpayer and not a candidate forpresidentof theUnitedStates, thatwouldbe aprettygood reasonnot torelease your tax returns,” said Joseph Thorndike, a law professor anddirectoroftheTaxHistoryProject.

But,Thorndikeadded,most tax lawyerswouldadviseprivatecitizensnottoreleasetheirreturnsinanysituation.

“The point is that the rules are different — if not legally, at leastpoliticallyandmorally—forcandidates,”Thorndikesaid.“I’msurethatreleasinghisreturnswhilebeingauditedwouldbeunpleasantforhimandmightmaketheauditharder,butthat’snotthepoint.”

Thorndike said that releasingTrump’s tax returns “would essentiallyallowthewholecountrytojoininhisaudit”byopeninguphistaxestoawiderlevelofscrutiny.

TrumptoldAPthatthereis“nothingtolearn”fromhistaxreturns,and

thatthepublicprobablyisn’tinterested.Manypoliticalscientistsandtaxexpertsdisagree.Thorndikesaid that

candidates’taxreturnscanrevealinformationabouttheirtaxableincome,how their businesses operate, charitable donations, potential financialconflictsofinterestandeffectivetaxrate.

Meena Bose, a political science professor who directs HofstraUniversity’s Peter S. Kalikow Center for the Study of the AmericanPresidency, said it’s possible that Trump’s tax returns won’t turn upanythingnoteworthy.

“Atthesametime,forapresidentialcandidatewhohasnotheldelectedoffice previously, there is some interest in his business dealings andhisargumentthathisabilitytomakedealsqualifieshimforthepresidency,”Bosesaid.

Somenewsorganizations, includingTheWashingtonPost andVanityFair,haveattemptedtoreconstructthroughpublicdocumentswhatmaybein Trump’s tax returns, but without the tax returns, that picture isincomplete.

Thorndike said it is difficult to speculate about what Trump’s taxreturnsmaycontain,but“weshouldn’thavetospeculate.”

“Wehavea right toexpect transparency fromourcandidates,even ifit’snotlegallyrequired,”Thorndikesaid.

APPhoto/NatiHarnikMike Pence speaks at a campaign stop inCouncilBluffs,IowainAugust2016.

TheNewsMedia&TheLaw·CoverStory

Pence'stransparencyrecordprovokesmixedreactionsBySophieMurguia

AlthoughMike Pence has wonpraiseforchampioningaproposedfederal shield law to protectjournalists’ sources, the Indianagovernor ’s overall FirstAmendmentrecordismixed.

WhenhewasintheU.S.Houseof Representatives, Pence severaltimes was one of the two leadingsponsors of the Free Flow ofInformation Act, a bill to protectreporters from being compelled to reveal confidential sources orinformation.While39statesandtheDistrictofColumbiahaveshieldlaws,thereisnosuchprotectiononthefederallevel.

The push for a federal shield law has been unsuccessful to date, butPence’s advocacy for freedom of the press earned him bipartisanadmiration.

“Hewasaterrificchampionforreportersandtheirrightstomaintaintheconfidentialityofsources,andI thinkthathistoryneedstobenoted,”saidRickBoucher,aformerDemocraticcongressmanfromVirginiawhoco-sponsoredthebillwithPence.Boucher,nowapartneratSidleyAustinLLP in Washington, is a friend of Tim Kaine and a Hillary Clintonsupporter,anddescribedPence’sworkonthebillas“asterlingeffort.”

“Penceisproperlyseeninthatsingularcontextasafriendofthepressand theFirstAmendment,”saidGerryLanosga,anassistantprofessoratIndianaUniversity’sMediaSchoolandpresidentof theIndianaCoalitionfor Open Government. However, Lanosga said Pence’s record asgovernoris“morecomplicated.”

Pence’s office not respond to Reporters Committee questions aboutPence’sviewsonFirstAmendmentissues.

As governor, Pence was praised by open government advocates forsigning a 2013 bill that increased transparency in Indiana’s economicdevelopmentagency,Lanosgasaid.Pencealsovetoedabill lastyear thatwould have allowed Indiana state agencies to charge a search fee forpublicrecordsrequests.

“Thecostofpublic records shouldneverbeabarrier to thepublic’srighttoknow,”PencesaidonTwitteraftervetoingthebill.

ButFirstAmendmentgroupshavealsobeencriticalofactionsPencehastakenasgovernor.InApril,thePenceadministrationwascriticizedforarguing that an Indiana SupremeCourt ruling could justify withholdingaccess to email and other documents requested under the state’s publicrecords law. The ruling addressed email held by Indiana’s GeneralAssembly,but Pence claimed that it should also apply to the governor ’soffice.

Lastyear,journalistsreactedwithalarmwhenPence’scommunicationsoffice attempted to create a state-run news service called “Just IN.” ThewebsitewouldhavecontainednewsstoriesaboutthePenceadministrationwrittenbyhiscommunicationsstaff.AlthoughPence’sofficearguedthatitwouldbe essentially a newwebsite for puttingout press releases,mediaorganizationsworriedthattheoutletwouldcompetewithortrytoreplaceindependent news sources. Pence abandoned the plan in response to thebacklash.

“Ithinkit’sveryproblematic,giventheTrumpcampaign’swillingnesstobannewsorganizations,ortoincreasinglygotomorefriendlyoutletslike Fox News, when you have a running mate who was consideringstartingwhatwasseenasastate-runnewsoutlet,”saidMichaelCalderone,TheHuffingtonPost’sseniormediareporter.

But Calderone said journalists have also seen some potentiallyencouraging signs fromPence as a nominee. In an interviewwith radiohostHughHewittinJuly,PencesuggestedthattheTrumpcampaigncouldliftitsbanoncertainmediaoutlets.

“I fully expect in the next 100 days, we’re going to continue to beavailabletothemedia,whetherthey’refairorunfair,”PencetoldHewitt.However, since that interview, reporters fromTrump’sdisfavoredmediaoutletshavecontinuedtoseetheirpresscredentialsdenied.

EvenifPenceprovestobeastrongadvocateformediaaccess,somejournalistsareskepticalthathecandomuchtochangehisrunningmate’smind.

“Ithinkhehassomeinfluence,butit’sultimatelyuptoDonaldTrump,”saidPoliticomediareporterHadasGold.

APPhoto/GeraldHerbert,FileTimKaineatacampaignstopinNewOrleansinAugust2016.

TheNewsMedia&TheLaw·CoverStory

KaineemailsreveallittlemorethanacarefulgovernorByLuisFerreSadurni

Email issues may be causingheadaches for Hillary Clinton, buta look through the more than145,000 email records publiclyavailable online from Democraticvice presidential candidate TimKaine’s term as governor ofVirginia show little more than apoliticianwho ismediaconscious,careful even of language ininternalmemos lest theybe leakedto the press, and who worked closely with press representatives onamendmentstothestateFreedomofInformationAct.

The email messages — part of more than 1.3 million records stillbeingprocessedbytheLibraryofVirginia—alsoprovidesomeinsightinto Sen. Kaine's reluctance to release his full travel schedule when heservedaschairmanoftheDemocraticNationalCommitteeduringhislastyearasgovernor.

Shortlyafterbecomingchairmanof theDNCinJanuary2009,criticsquestionedwhetherKaine’s travels asDNC chairmanwere affecting hiswork as governor. While his office made public a daily schedule,including official trips he took as governor, it did not include Kaine’stravelfortheDNC.

“In the political press it received quite a bit of attention, but I don’tknow that it was an all-dominating scandal or anything,” said MeganRhyne,executivedirectoroftheVirginiaCoalitionforOpenGovernment.

Kaine'sofficee-mailrevealsdenialstoatleastthreeFOIArequestsforhis travel records from The Associated Press, Judicial Watch, and the

RepublicanPartyofVirginia.TwolegalmemospreparedforoneofKaine’stopcounselorsargued

thatKaine’s travel scheduleswere exempt from state FOIAbecause theywere“workingpapers...forhispersonalanddeliberativeuse.”

After continued pressure, Kaine’s office released a summary of histravels at the end of every month, but didn’t make distinctions betweenDNCandstatetravels.

In a June 2009 email to Jay Timmons, president of the NationalAssociationofManufacturersandKaine’sclosefriend,thethen-governorconfidedthathewouldonlypublishhispublicschedulebecauseitwas“therightpractice.”

“I have told the press that I amglad to talk to themaboutwhat I amdoingandmy schedulewhenever they askme,”Kainewrote. “I do5-10press availabilities a week where I take any questions and have neverrefused to answer an inquiry about my schedule or anything else. Forsomereason,thathasnotbeensufficient.Youknowthechallenges!”

Neither his Senate office or campaign responded to the ReportersCommittee'squestionsregardingKaine'sstanceontransparencyissues.

The Virginia Tech University shooting in 2007 and its aftermathpresentedyetanothermomentwhenKaine’sadministrationfacedpressurenavigating the state’s FOIA. After a legal settlement between victims’families and the university, more than 20,000 related documents werereleasedtotheRichmondTimes-DispatchafteraFOIArequest.

But ina July20,2008, front-pagestory, theTimes-Dispatch revealedthat the universitywithheldmanymore documents from reporters. “TheuniversitytoldthereportersthatexemptionstotheFOIAallowedittokeepsecretmanyofthemostimportantdocumentssurroundingtheevent,”thearticlereported.

InanemailthatmorningtohiscounselLawrenceRoberts,Kainewrote“There’s a front-page article in the RTD today about Tech withholdinginformation concerning the April 07 shooting. Are they not followingFOIA?Shouldweintervene?”

Robertsreplied,“IamsurethatFOIAexemptionscovermostofwhathas not been turned over to the media. That being said, it may not bepossible to survive a constant drumbeat of themedia complaining aboutaccess.”

Additional correspondence between Kaine staffers reveals his office

worked closelywith theVirginia PressAssociation (VPA) to update thestate FOIA in 2008. TheVirginia FOIA undergoes changes almost on ayearlybasis,accordingtoRhyne.

IncraftingthelegislativelanguageforanewFOIAexemption,Kaine’sstafferscommunicatedwithFirstAmendmentlawyersandVPAleadershiptoensurethenewexemptionwouldbeinterpretedinthenarrowestsense.The amendment included an exemption for records involving BaseRealignmentAndClosure(BRAC)planning.

“I’d like tomakesureour remarksdonotcontainanything thatVPAwouldtakeissuewith,”wroteKaine’sSeniorAdvisorMarcFollmerinanemail.ThenewFOIAlanguagewascodifiedintolawlaterin2008.

Like many politicians, Kaine was mindful of the media, takingmeasurestoavoidcontroversialleaks.Inanearly2008email,Kaineaskedhiscommunicationsdirector torevise thedraftofamemowritten to thestate’sDemocraticlegislativeleadership.

Kainewrote, “Since it couldwind up in a reporter ’s hands, I wouldloveitifyoucouldreaditquicklyjusttomakesureit’skosher."

RCFPpercentageofjournalistswhosupportareleasetoone,releasetoallFOIApolicy

TheNewsMedia&TheLaw·FreedomofInformation·Feature

WhattheFOIAreformactmeanstoyouByAdamMarshall

In late June, President Obamasigned theFOIA ImprovementActof 2016, bringing importantchanges to the 50-year old federaltransparency law. The measurebrings some changes to the FOIAprocess, notably in exemptions,that will affect requests filed afterthelawwassignedJune30.

Among the law's biggestchanges are new limits on FOIAexemptions.

First,the“foreseeableharm”standardhasbeencodifiedintolaw.Thismeans that even if a requested record falls within one of FOIA’s nineexemptions,theagencystillhastoreleaseitunlessitreasonablyforeseesthat disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption or ifdisclosureisprohibitedbylaw.

Journalistswhofileanadministrativeappealoverawithhelddocumentcan and should challenge an agency’s failure to comply with theforeseeable harm standard. The legislative history of the 2016amendmentsmakesclearthatagenciesmustdeterminewhetherthereleaseof“particulardocuments,”notsimplygenericcategoriesofrecords,willcause foreseeable harm. More detailed guidance on the scope andrequirement of the new standard will have to be decided by futurelitigation.

Second, there is now a 25-year sunset on the deliberative processprivilege, which is part of Exemption 5. If the records requested werecreated25years(ormore)beforethedateoftherequest,agenciescannot

relyonthedeliberativeprocessprivilegetowithholdthem.The new law also made changes in how records are requested and

released.The federal government must create a consolidated online request

portalthatallowsanyonetosubmitaFOIArequesttoanyagencyfromasingle website. There is no deadline for the creation of such a portal,however,and it isunlikely tobeoperationalany timesoon. (Meanwhile,independent resources, such as theReportersCommittee’s iFOIA portal,canbeusedtosendFOIArequeststoalmosteveryfederalagency.)

More federal records are required to be proactively disclosed underthe amendments.An agencymustmake available online those records itdetermineshaveorarelikelytobecomethesubjectofrequests.Howthatdeterminationwillbemadeisnotyetclear.

Agencies are also required to put records online that “have beenrequestedthreeormoretimes”whichlikelymeansrecordsthathavebeenrequestedandreleasedthreeormoretimes.

The executive branch is also going beyond the “rule of three”requirement with a “release to one, release to all” policy, which wouldpostpubliclyonlineallrecordsreleasedunderFOIA.

TheReporters Committee recently conducted a survey of journalistson the public release policy. Preliminary results show overwhelmingapprovalfromjournalistsonthepolicy,aslongasthereisadelaybetweenthetimetherecordsarereleasedtotherequesterandwhentheyarepostedonline. The complete survey results will be available in a report to bereleasedinthecomingweeks.

Additional changes to administrative appeals, fees, and disputeresolutionalsocanbefoundinthenewregulations.

Journalistsandotherrequestersnowhaveatleast90calendardaystofileadministrativeappeals.Previously,therewasnostatutorydeadlineforwhen such appeals needed to be filed, and agency regulations variedgreatly.

Thereareonlyminorfeechanges to take intoaccountfor thosewhoqualify as a “representative of the news media.” Ordinarily, an agencycannotchargesuchrequestersanyfeesifitfailstomakeadeterminationfor a request within 20 working days (except in certain circumstances).Underthe2016amendments,agenciescanchargeduplicationfeesiftheyfailtomeetthe20-daydeadlineifthreerequirementsaremet:(1)“unusual

circumstancesapply”;(2)morethan5,000pagesarenecessarytorespondto the request; and (3) the agency provides timely notice of the unusualcircumstances and discusses with the requester how they can limit thescopeof the request.This change shouldnot affect requestswhere a feewaiverhasbeengranted.

Whenprovidingarequesterwitha“determination,”agenciesarealsonowrequiredtoinformthemaboutthedisputeresolutionservicesofferedbytheFOIAPublicLiaisonoftheagencyandtheOfficeofGovernmentalServices (OGIS). OGIS’s independence was strengthened by the 2016amendments, which observers expect will lead to better oversight andadministrationofFOIAacrossthefederalgovernment.

For those who want to take a deeper dive into the specifics of theamendments, a redline of FOIA incorporating the amendments has beenpublishedonlinebytheDepartmentofJustice.

TheNewsMedia&TheLaw·Newsgathering·Feature

Anatomyofabrief:ReportersCommitteesupportschallengesto"ag-gag"statutesByMichaelLambert

In June, the Reporters Committee filed friend-of-the-court briefs intwofederalcourtsassertingasimilarargument—lawscriminalizingtherecording of agricultural production facilities, known as “ag-gag”statutes,areunconstitutionalundertheFirstAmendment.

Numerousstateshaveenacted“ag-gag”lawsinrecentyearsthatpunishthose who make audio or video recordings at agricultural facilitieswithouttheconsentofthefacilityowner.Althoughtheparticularlanguageof each statute varies from state-to-state, the laws effectively banundercoverreportingontheagriculturalindustryandgagspeechcriticalof agricultural practices. In turn, the public’s ability to learn aboutpotentiallydangerousandunethicalconditionsatagricultural facilities isstifled.

Idahoenacted an “ag-gag” law in2014 that created themisdemeanorcrime of “interferencewith agricultural production” to knowinglymakean audio or video recording of an agricultural production facility’soperation without the owner ’s express consent. After a number oforganizations, including the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF),challengedthelaw,theU.S.DistrictCourtfortheDistrictofIdahostruckdownIdaho’s“ag-gag”lawasunconstitutionalin2015undertheFirstandFourteenth Amendments, becoming the first court to invalidate an “ag-gag” law. This summer, the Reporters Committee and 22 mediaorganizationsfiledanamicusbriefwiththeU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuit inAnimalLegalDefenseFundv.Wasden in support of theplaintiffsseekingtoupholdthetrialcourt’sdecision.

Similarly,Utahpasseditsown“ag-gag”lawin2012thatcriminalized“agricultural operation interference,” defined as knowingly or

intentionallyrecordinganimageorsoundfromanagriculturaloperationwithout consent from the owner. Soon after the law’s enactment, Utahprosecutors chargedAmyMeyer, a Utah activist, with violating the lawafter she attempted to document slaughterhouse abuses from publicproperty.Meyerwas the first person in the country prosecuted under an“ag-gag”statute.AlthoughthegovernmentultimatelydroppedthechargesagainstMeyer, she joinedALDF and other organizations in challengingthe law in Utah federal court. In June, the Reporters Committee and 17mediaorganizationsfiledanamicusbriefwiththeU.S.DistrictCourtfortheDistrictofUtahinAnimalLegalDefenseFundv.HerbertinsupportofALDFandotherplaintiffs’motionforsummaryjudgment,whichasksthecourttodeclarethelawunconstitutional.

Inbothcases, theReportersCommitteearguedthatthe“ag-gag”lawsareunconstitutionalundertheFirstAmendmentbecausetheydeterfutureinvestigationsintotheagricultureindustry,suppressspeechonamatterofpublic concern inwhich thepublichasa right toknow,andarecontent-basedrestrictionsonspeechthatdonotsurvivestrictscrutiny.

Previous investigations by journalists, organizations, andwhistleblowers have successfully unveiled injustices in agriculturalproduction practices. For example, Upton Sinclair ’s famous exposé onChicago’sslaughterhouses,TheJungle,iscreditedwithaidingpassageofthePureFoodandDrugActand theMeat InspectionAct.TheReportersCommitteearguedinitsbriefthat“ag-gag”lawspreventfutureenterprisejournalisticendeavorsthatseektoreportonhealthandsafetyconcernsinagriculture, topics of the utmost public interest. By criminalizing audioandvideorecordingsatagriculturefacilities,the“ag-gag”statutesweakenfoodsafetywhilestiflingfreespeech.

Journalistic scrutiny of agricultural production facilities canonlyleadtobetterfoodsafety.Silencingthespeechofjournalistsandthewhistleblowerswhoactas theirsourceswith the threatofcriminalconvictionleavesafederalinspectionsystemfraughtwithits own problems as the lonewatchdog over the food the publicconsumes. [The] statute should be struck down because thegovernment must not discourage journalists from providing thesamesearchingexaminationofthefoodindustrythathasresultedinsaferfoodtothenationforover100years.

TheReportersCommittee stressed that the FirstAmendment protectsthe creation of audio and video recordings. Accordingly, restrictingjournalists and their sources from scrutinizing the agricultural industrythroughrecordingsrestrictsspeechofpublicconcernandspeechthatthepublichasarighttoreceivefromenteringthemarketplaceofideas.

[The “ag-gag” statute] squarely suppresses speech relating totopicsofuniversalimportance—thesafetyofemployeesandthepublicfoodsupply,thetreatmentofanimals,andtheimpactoftheagricultureindustryontheenvironment....[Thestates']attempttogag these areas of substantial public interest violates the FirstAmendment’s commitment to encouraging speech on matters ofpublicconcern.

...

TheU.S.SupremeCourthasfoundthatthepublichasaheightenedand independent First Amendment right to receive information,independent of the speech interests of journalists and otheradvocates. “[W]here a speaker exists, as is the case here, theprotectionaffordedistothecommunication,toitssourceandtoitsrecipients both.” Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. CitizensConsumerCouncil,Inc.,425U.S.748,756(1976).

The Reporters Committee also argued that “ag-gag” statutes arecontent-based restrictions that are not narrowly tailored to servecompelling state interests. Thus, the laws are unconstitutional under theFirstAmendment.

Content-based restrictions on speech are presumptivelyunconstitutional under the First Amendment. City of Renton v.Playtime Theatres, 475 U.S. 41, 47 (1986). Governments areprohibited from restricting speech based on its content becausecontent-based laws threaten to “manipulate the public debatethroughcoercionrather thanpersuasion,”TurnerBroad.Sys. Inc.

v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 641 (1994), and permit governments to“drivecertainideasorviewpointsfromthemarketplace.”R.A.V.v.CityofSt.Paul,505U.S.377,387(1982).Content-basedlawsareonly constitutional if they survive strict scrutiny, which requiresthelawstobenarrowlytailoredtoservecompellingstateinterests.Reedv.TownofGilbert,135S.Ct.2218,2226(2015).

TheU.S.SupremeCourt,inReed,definedcontent-basedregulationsas“those that target speech based on its communicative content” and thosethat define regulated speech “by particular subject matter” or “by itsfunction or purpose.” Id. at 2227. Using this definition, the ReportersCommitteewrote that theUtahandIdaho“ag-gag”statuteswerecontent-basedrestrictionsbecausetheybothregulatespeech“byparticularsubjectmatter”—“conductofanagriculturalproductionfacility’soperations”inIdahoand“agricultureoperations”inUtah.

Further, both states asserted protecting private property rights andpreventing trespass and fraud as justifications for enacting the laws.However, neither of these interests are compelling. Privacy rights ofagriculture facilities are already compromised by federal governmentinspectorswhoconsistentlyvisitthepremises,observeoperations,andtestmeat products. Trespass and fraud are already addressed by currenttrespassandfraudlawssufficienttoaccountfortheseconcerns.

Regardless of the state interests asserted, both laws are not narrowlytailored to be the least restrictive means of achieving those interestsbecause they both criminalize a number of constitutionally protectednewsgatheringactivities.

Ultimately, the Reporters Committee concluded that the laws areunconstitutional under theFirstAmendment as content-based restrictionsnotnarrowlytailoredtoserveacompellingstateinterest.

TheNewsMedia&TheLaw·SecretCourts·Feature

TherightofaccesstojurornamesandaddressesByKevinDelaney

Sincebeforethenation’sfounding,theideathattheidentitiesofjurorswould be known not just to the parties before a court but also to thecommunity at large has been a fundamental principle of the Americanjudicial system. “When the colonists imported the jury system toAmerica,”aMassachusettstrialcourtrecognized,“theybroughtwiththemasystem inwhichadefendant inall typesofcriminal trials traditionallyhad been tried by individualswhom the defendant knew or, at leastwashighlylikelytoknow.”[1]Adifferentcourtsimilarlypointedout that thejuryselectionfor theBritishsoldierson trial forcommitting theBostonMassacre “was open to the public, and the identities of the jurors whoacquittedthesoldierswereknowntothecommunity.”[2]

It was not until 1977, more than 200 years after the signing of theDeclaration of Independence, that the first fully anonymous jury in thenation’shistorywasempaneled.[3]ThecasewasUnited States v.Barnes—acriminal trialwhere the leaderofa largedrug traffickingnetwork,Leroy (“Nicky”)Barnes,and14co-defendantswere tried forconspiracyas well as violating narcotics and firearms laws. The U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Second Circuit upheld the use of the anonymous jury,findingthestepwasnecessarybecausethejurors’fearofretaliationwouldhavehinderedthedeliberativeprocess.[4]

DespitetheiroverallrarityinAmericanhistory,“namelessjurieshaveprogressed from a judicial fluke to a well-established departure fromordinary procedure, and a measure which some authorities argueseriouslyshouldbeordinaryprocedure.”[5]Today,everyfederaljudicialcircuit,excludingthe10thCircuit,hasapprovedoftheuseofanonymousjuries.[6] This past summer, for instance, a federal judge in Brooklynorderedtheempanelmentofananonymousjuryinthecriminaltrialofanal Qaeda terrorist who threatened to kill prosecutors and court staff.[7]

More troubling is the practice of trial courts in LosAngelesCounty ofwithholding juror names in the majority of criminal cases.[8] Even insituations where courts decide to disclose the identities of jurors to theparties, theymay refuse todisclose such information tomembersof thenewsmedia.[9]

Theuseof anonymous juries undoubtedly raises important questionsconcerningadefendant’sSixthAmendmentrighttoafairtrial.[10]Theiruse, however, also raises important questions for journalists who coverthecourts.Jurorsinhighprofilecasesareoftenafundamentalpartofthestory.Eventhoughjournalists,asamatterofethics,typicallyrefrainfrominterviewingjurorsduringatrial,journalistsroutinelymakepost-verdictrequestsforinterviews.Theseinterviewscanenlightenthejudicialprocessfor readers and viewers, often shedding light onwhy a particular jurorvotedasheorshedid.[11]Moreover,althoughjournaliststypicallyavoidnaming jurors before and after a verdict is entered, journalistsoccasionally feel it is necessary to name jurors when serving as“watchdogs”ofthedemocraticprocess.Forinstance,astheUnitedStatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently noted, a pressinvestigation into the jury in the corruption trial of former IllinoisGovernor George Ryan revealed that several jurors “had lied on theirquestionnairesandhaddisqualifyingconvictionsorotherwisemighthavebeensubjecttochallengeforcause.”[12]

This white paper will evaluate the use of anonymous juries and thenewsmedia’squalifiedFirstAmendmentandcommonlawrightsofaccessto jurornamesandaddresses.Aswillbedisplayedbelow,both theFirstAmendment and common law provide strong, albeit qualified, rights ofaccess to this information. With anonymity becoming increasinglycommon, this issue will take on added importance for members of thenewsmedia.

AnonymousJuriesAlthoughthetermhasanintuitivemeaning,courtshavestruggledwith

defining what exactly constitutes an anonymous jury.[13] One court hasasserted that the termmeansonly “that the court doesnotdisclose jurornamestotheparties.”[14]Anothercourt,inprovidingadefinitionthatbestserves the readers of this white paper, concluded, “A jury generally isconsidered to be ‘anonymous’ when a trial court has withheld certain

biographical information about the jurors either from the public, or theparties, or both.”[15] The biographical information typically withheldincludes jurors’ and their spouses’ names, addresses, and places ofemployment.[16]

Generally, a court will not “order the empaneling of an anonymousjurywithout(a)concludingthatthereisstrongreasontobelievethejuryneeds protection, and (b) taking reasonable precautions tominimize anyprejudicial effects on the defendant and to ensure that his fundamentalrights are protected.”[17] Courts usually hold that some combination ofthefivefollowingfactorswillshowthatthejuryisinneedofprotection:

(1)thedefendant’sinvolvementinorganizedcrime,(2)thedefendant’sparticipationinagroupwiththecapacitytoharmjurors, (3) the defendant’s past attempts to interfere with thejudicial process, (4) the potential that, if convicted, thedefendant will suffer a lengthy incarceration and substantialmonetary penalties, and (5) extensive publicity that couldenhance the possibility that jurors’ names would becomepublicandexposethemtointimidationorharassment.[18]

Moreover,at leastonefederalstatutewouldseeminglypermittheuseofanonymous juries.TheJurySelectionandServiceActstates thateachdistrict court shall put into operation a written plan for the randomselection of jurors that fixes “the timewhen the names drawn from thequalified jurywheel shallbedisclosed topartiesand to thepublic.” [19]ThatAct also states, however, that judgesmaykeep thenamesof jurors“confidentialinanycasewheretheinterestsofjusticesorequire.”[20]

Appellatecourtsroutinelyrefertotheempanelmentofananonymousjury as a “drasticmeasure” because their use “raises the specter that thedefendantisadangerouspersonfromwhomthejurorsmustbeprotected,therebyimplicatingthedefendant'sconstitutionalrighttoapresumptionofinnocence.”[21] Nonetheless, at the federal level, judges are rarelyoverturned for their decision to empanel an anonymous jury. It appearsthatreversalduetotheuseofananonymousjuryhasoccurredinonlyonefederal case:United States v. Sanchez, [22] a case in which the UnitedStatesCourt ofAppeals for theFifthCircuit held therewasno evidencesuggesting that thedefendantwas involved inorganizedcrimeor thathehad attempted to manipulate the judicial process. The lack of reversalsderives from the reality that a trial court’s decision to empanel an

anonymous jury is subject to thedeferentialabuse-of-discretionstandardonappeal.Everyfederalappellatecourttoconsiderthequestionhascometotheconclusionthattheabuseofdiscretionstandardisappropriate.[23]

ThequalifiedrightofaccesstojurornamesandaddressesDespite the rise of anonymous juries, members of the news media

possessthegeneralrighttochallengeacourt’sdecisiontowithholdjurornames and addresses. [24] When making these challenges, the presstypically asserts theyhave aFirstAmendment and common law right tothedesiredinformation.Aswillbedisplayedbelow,themajorityofcourtsto consider the issue have concluded that a qualified right of access tojurornamesandaddressesexists.[25]

TheFirstAmendmentrightofaccessInthemilestonecaseofRichmondNewspapers,Inc.v.Virginia,[26]the

U.S.SupremeCourtrecognizedthatthepublicandpresshaveaqualifiedFirst Amendment right to attend criminal trials. “[T]he right to attendcriminal trials is implicit in theguaranteesof theFirstAmendment,” theCourtexplained,because“withoutthefreedomtoattendsuchtrials,whichpeople have exercised for centuries, important aspects of freedom ofspeech and of the press could be eviscerated.”[27] In other words, ifmembers of the public were not afforded access to trials, their FirstAmendment right to report on them would be meaningless. SinceRichmond Newspapers, the Court has extended the qualified FirstAmendmentrightofaccesstothetestimonyofchildsexoffensevictims,[28]thevoirdireexaminationofprospectivejurors,[29]andcriminalpre-trialhearings.[30]

InPress-EnterpriseII,theCourtarticulatedatwo-parttest,referredtoasthe“experienceandlogic”test,fordeterminingwhenthepresumptiverightofaccessundertheFirstAmendmentapplies.Underthefirstpartofthe test, courtsare instructed toask“whether theplaceandprocesshavehistorically been open to the press and general public.”[31] Under thesecond part, courts must “consider whether public access plays asignificant positive role in the functioning of the particular process inquestion.”[32] If a court finds that a certain part of a proceeding passesbothparts,theFirstAmendmentrightofaccessapplies.

WhenaddressingwhethertheFirstAmendmentrightofaccessexists,courts usually apply a de novo standard of review.[33]Thus, unlike the

abuse of discretion standard that is applied to the question ofwhether atrialcourterred inempanelingananonymous jury,courtsevaluating theexistence of the First Amendment right of access usually afford nodeferencetothelowercourt.

Althoughstrong,theFirstAmendmentrightofaccessisnotabsolute.TheCourthasmadeclearthattherightisqualifiedandcanbeovercomeby a narrowly tailored overriding interest that closure is necessary topreserveahighervalue.[34]Toshowthatanoverriding interestexists,acourt must make specific factual findings on the record.[35] The U.S.Supreme Court has identified “safeguarding the physical andpsychologicalwell-beingofaminor”andtheaccused’srighttoafairtrialas potential “overriding interests” sufficient to overcome the FirstAmendmentrightofaccess.[36]

Applying"experienceandlogic:caselawevaluatingthequalifiedFirstAmendmentrightofaccess

Excellent examples of cases recognizing the qualified FirstAmendment rightofaccess to jurornamesandaddresses includeUnitedStatesv.Wecht,[37]UnitedStatesv.Doherty,[38]Commonwealthv.Long,[39]State ex rel.Beacon JournalPubl’gCo. v.Bond, [40] andPeople v.Mitchell.[41]

On the experience prong, as evident from these opinions and others,courtstypicallystressthenation’slongtraditionofmakingthenamesandaddresses of jurors open to the public. For instance, inUnited States v.Wecht—acaseinwhichthenewsmediachallengedatrialcourt’sdecisionto empanel an anonymous jury in the criminal case againstDr.CyrilH.Wecht,acoronerchargedwithusinghispublicofficeforprivatefinancialgain—theUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheThirdCircuitnotedthatitwasrareforjurornamestobewithheldbeforetheupsurgeintheuseofanonymous juries in the 1970s.[42] The Third Circuit concluded that“[b]ecausejurieshavehistoricallybeenselectedfromlocalpopulationsinwhichmostpeoplehaveknowneachother...thetraditionalpublicnatureof voir dire strongly suggests that jurors’ identities were public aswell.”[43]InBeaconJournal,acaseinwhichanewspapersoughtanorderdirectingatrialcourttodisclosealistofjurornamesandaddressesfromacriminalcasethatendedinamistrial,theSupremeCourtofOhionotedthat even before the Norman Conquest trials were held in which “the

public knew the identity and residence of the participants.”[44] It furtherstatedthatthistraditionof“accesstojurors’identitiescontinuedinthenewAmerican nation” where, “[i]n the treason trial of Aaron Burr, forexample,ChiefJusticeJohnMarshallprintedthenamesofthejurorsinthecourt’sreporteddecision.”[45]

The outcome of the experience prong, however, can be affected byhow the court frames the inquiry. InUnited States v. Doherty,[46] twonewspapers intervened in the criminal case of multiple defendants forpost-verdict access to the names and addresses of the jurors who hadserved. On the experience prong, instead of asking whether names andaddressesof jurorshavehistoricallybeenopentothepublic, theDistrictCourt for the District of Massachusetts evaluated the tradition of pressaccessibilitytojurorsforpost-verdictinterviews.[47]Framedthisway,thedistrictcourtfoundthehistoryofpost-verdictinterviewstobe“scant,”butnevertheless concluded that the “broad latitude afforded to the press ingatheringnews”tendedtofavoraccessontheexperienceprong.[48]

Onthelogicprong,courtsrecognizingthequalifiedFirstAmendmentright of access typically stress the ability of the newsmedia to preventjurorbiasandeducatethepubliconthejudicialprocess.TheThirdCircuitinWecht, for instance, wrote that affording the public access to jurornames will improve the fairness of the proceedings. Quoting from theFirstCircuit’s decision in In reGlobeNewspaperCo., the ThirdCircuitwrote:

“Knowledgeof juror identitiesallows thepublic toverifythe impartiality of key participants in the administration ofjustice, and thereby ensures fairness, the appearance offairnessandpublicconfidenceinthatsystem.Itispossible,forexample,thatsuspicionsmightariseinaparticulartrial(orinaseriesoftrials)thatjurorswereselectedfromonlyanarrowsocial group, or from persons with certain politicalaffiliations,orfrompersonsassociatedwithorganizedcrimegroups.Itwouldbemoredifficulttoinquireintosuchmatters,andthosesuspicionswouldseeminanyeventmorerealtothepublic,ifnamesandaddresseswerekeptsecret.”[49]

To theThirdCircuit, the value (or to put it differently, the logic) inaffording access to juror names is in eliminating juror malfeasance.“Corruptionandbiasinajuryshouldberootedoutbeforeadefendanthas

to run the gauntlet of trial,” the Third Circuit wrote.[50] “Publicknowledgeofthejurors’identitiesisdesirableinpartbecauseitcandetersuchcorruptionandbias.”[51]

InBeaconJournal,theSupremeCourtofOhiowrotethatmanyofthefivevalues“servedbyopenness incriminalproceedings” recognizedbythe U.S. Supreme Court in Richmond Newspapers were also served byaffordingpublicaccesstojurornames.[52]Thosefivevaluesare:

(1) ensuring that proceedings are conducted fairly, (2)discouragingperjury,misconductofparticipants,andunbiaseddecisions, (3) providing a controlled outlet for communityhostility and emotion, (4) securing public confidence in atrial’s results through the appearance of fairness, and (5)inspiringconfidenceinjudicialproceedingsthrougheducationonthemethodsofgovernmentandjudicialremedies.[53]

TheOhiohighcourt further recognized thevalueofpost-trialmediainterviewswithjurors.Theseinterviews,thecourtwrote,canshedlightonjuror misconduct as well as on larger problems that may need to beimproved by the judicial or legislative process.[54] Similar sentimentswereechoedby thedistrictcourt inDoherty,whichwrote thatstoriesonjurorscanhelpeducate“thepublicastotheirowndutiesandobligationsshouldtheybecalledforjuryservice.”[55]

Although it is clear that many courts recognize a qualified FirstAmendment right of access to juror names, courts often differ onwhenthisrightofaccessattaches.TheThirdCircuitinWecht,forinstance,heldthat the right attaches “at the latest at the time of the swearing andempanelmentof the jury . . . .”[56] Incontrast, citingconcerns related tothedefendants’ right toafair trialand jurorprivacy, thedistrictcourt inDoherty held that access to jurornamesandaddresseswouldbedelayeduntilsevendaysaftertheverdictwasreturned.[57]

Moreover, even courts that recognize the qualified FirstAmendmentrightofaccessacknowledgesituations inwhich therightdoesnotapply.For instance, in In reGlobeNewspaperCo.,[58] theFirstCircuit appliedtheFirstAmendmenttointerpretalocalcourtruletomakeavailablejurornamesandaddressesafter thecompletionofa trial“unless thepresidingjudgeidentifiesspecific,validreasonsnecessitatingconfidentiality in theparticularcase.”Reasonsnecessitatingconfidentiality“includeacrediblethreatofjurytampering,ariskofpersonalharmtoindividualjurors,and

other evils affecting the administration of justice, but do not include themerepersonalpreferencesorviewsofthejudgeorjurors.”[59]TheCourtofAppeals ofMichigan, for its part, place greatweight on juror safety,writing that access to juror names and addresses can be restricted in“exceptionalcases,especiallyorganizedcrimetrials,andtrialsinvolvinganunusuallyviolentoffender. . . .”[60]Courtshavealsomadeclear thatjuror names can be withheld if their publication would impinge on thedefendant’srighttoafairtrial.[61]

Additionally,noteverycourthasappliedtheexperienceandlogictestto find a qualified First Amendment right of access. In contrast to thecourtsabove,theSupremeCourtofDelawareinGannettCo.v.State[62]appliedtheexperienceandlogictesttoholdthatthepressdoesnothaveaqualified First Amendment right to require courts to announce jurornames during a murder trial. The Delaware high court’s decision wasaffectedbytheconductofjournalistsinanearlierprominentmurdercase.Inthatearliercase,jurornameswerepublishedinanarticleprofilingthejurors, providing readers with information on the jurors’ “hometowns,occupations,marital status, number and ages of their children, personalmannerismsandappearance.”[63]Theprofilesweredescribedas“rarelyflattering.”[64]

On theexperienceprong, theDelawareSupremeCourtnoted that themere fact that juror names may be announced in court does notautomatically mean the practice should be afforded constitutionalprotection.[65] It further acknowledged various state and federal statutesthat “give trial courts broad discretion over release of jurors’ names,”which“authorizecourtstokeepjurors’namesconfidentialintheinterestof justice and to limit such use in any case in whole or in part.”[66]According to the court, the statutes establish a historical tradition underwhichjudgeshavethediscretiontodisclosejurornames—notahistoricaltraditionunderwhich jurornamesareuniformlydisclosed.On the logicprong,thecourtdisagreedwithGannett’sassertionthattheannouncementof juror names allows the public and press to serve as a check onundisclosedjurorbias.Thevoirdireprocessandpreemptorychallenges,the court stated, should be sufficient to ensure a fair trial without theadditional help of the press.[67] The court, moreover, expressed theconcern that the publication of articles about the jurors would lead tooutside pressure being placed on the jurors, thereby corrupting the

fairnessofthetrial.[68]

TheCommonLawRightofAccessIn Nixon v. Warner Communications,[69] the U.S. Supreme Court

recognized a general, common law “right to inspect and copy publicrecordsanddocuments,includingjudicialrecordsanddocuments.”Underthisholding,thepublicandpresspossessacommonlawrightofaccesstojudicial records.Whenapplying thecommon law rightof access, courtswill generally balance “the presumption of openness against thecircumstanceswarrantingsealingofthedocument....”[70]Thus,theFirstAmendmenttypicallyprovidesastrongerrightofaccessthanthecommonlawbecausethequalifiedFirstAmendmentrightcanbeovercomeonlybyanarrowlytailoredoverridinginterest.

Decisions involving the common law right of access to juror namesand addresses often turn on whether the list containing the names andaddresses of jurors is considered a “judicial record.” In In re BaltimoreSun Co.,[71] the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuitconcluded that the list was a judicial record that the common law rightattaches to when the jury is seated. “After a jury has been seated,” theFourthCircuitwrote, jurornames“are just asmuchapartof thepublicrecord as any other part of the case, and we think so also are theiraddresses in order to identify them.”[72] The United States Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Blagojevich[73]likewiseconcludedthatthecommonlawpresumptionofaccessattachestojuror names. That opinion, however, primarily focused on the JurySelectionandServiceAct,referencedabove,whichitwrotealsocreatedapresumptionthatjurornamesshouldbedisclosed.

InCommonwealthv.Long,[74]theSupremeCourtofPennsylvaniaheldthat“alistcontainingthenamesandaddressesofimpaneledjurors”doesnotconstitutea“publicjudicialdocument”towhichthecommonlawrightofaccessattaches.Accordingtothatcourt,documentstypicallyclassifiedaspublicjudicialdocumentsarefiledwiththecourtandusedbythejudgeinreachingadecision.[75]Thisstandardwasnotmetbecausethejurylistis never entered into evidence and “is not the type of information uponwhich a judge bases his or her decision.”[76] The Court of Appeals ofNewYork inNewsday, Inc.v.Sise[77] similarly concluded therewasnocommon law right of access to records of juror names and addresses

becausetherecords“havenotbeenenteredintoevidenceorfiledincourtandare,therefore,notpublicjudicialrecords.”

Althoughtheincreaseinthenumberofanonymousjuriesistroubling,the foregoing displays that the news media has been successful inchallenging the decision of courts to withhold juror names. Indeed, itappears that the news media has been more successful at challenginganonymousjuriesthanlitigantsintheactualcase.

Both theFirstAmendmentandcommonlawprovidevalidargumentsformembersofthenewsmediawhoseektopromotetherightofaccesstojuror names and addresses. When arguing the First Amendment, it isimperative that members of the news media stress the nation’s longtradition of access to juror names and addresses. Equally important isstressing the soundness behind affording such access. The opinionsaddressed above and others provide members of the news media withmanyvalidargumentsforwhytherightofaccess to jurornamesshouldbe afforded. As Justice Harlan oncewrote, “[J]urors will perform theirrespective functions more responsibly in an open court than in secretproceedings.”[78]SostrongistheFirstAmendmentrightofaccessthatitshouldbeovercomeonlybyacrediblerisktothesafetyorintegrityofthejury.Whenarguingthecommonlaw,membersofthenewsmediashouldemphasize that juror lists are judicial records towhich the common lawrightofaccessattaches.Withoutsuchanargumentinplace,courtsstandtobypassthecommonlawaccessrightaltogether.

Valid arguments also exist for asserting that the access right shouldattach at the time of the swearing and empanelment of the jury. Courts,suchas thedistrictcourt inUnitedStatesv.Doherty, thathold theaccessrightshouldattachaftertheentryoftheverdictfailtoseethenewsmedia’srole inpreventing jurormisconduct.Byaffordingaccess to jurornamesand addresses, members of the news media are positioned to performfurther investigations into jurors’ backgrounds, potentially preventing amiscarriageofjustice.

Although judges will likely remain protective of jurors’ safety andprivacy, it must always be kept in mind that reasonable alternatives tosecrecyexist.Membersofthenewsmediashouldremindjudgesthattheyhave theability to“forbidanyone tomake repeated requests that a jurordiscussacaseafterthejuror ’srefusaltodosoandmayinstructthejurorsthattheyhavenoobligationtodiscussthecasewithanyone.”[79]“[W]hile

privacy concerns following a publicized trial are real,” the FirstCircuitreflected, “these unfocused fears must be balanced against the loss ofpublicconfidenceinourjusticesystemthatcouldariseifcriminaljuriesveryoftenconsistedofanonymouspersons.”[80]

Endnotes:[1] Commonwealth v. Dupont, No. 85-981-987, 1998 Mass. Super.

LEXIS476,at*55(Mass.Super.Ct.Aug.24,1998).[2]Commonwealthv.Fujita,470Mass.484,486n.8(2015).[3]AbrahamAbramovsky&JonathanI.Edelstein,AnonymousJuries:

In Exigent Circumstances Only, 13 St. John’s J. Legal Comment. 457(1999).

[4]UnitedStatesv.Barnes,604F.2d121,141(2dCir.1979).[5]Abramovsky&Edelstein,supra,at465.[6]See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Ramírez-Rivera,800F.3d1(1stCir.2015);

Barnes, 604 F.2d at 130;United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015 (3dCir.1988);UnitedStatesv.Dinkins,691F.3d358(4thCir.2012);UnitedStatesv.Krout,66F.3d1420(5thCir.1995);UnitedStatesv.Deitz,577F.3d672(6thCir.2009);UnitedStates v.Crockett, 979F.2d 1204 (7thCir. 1992);United States v. Darden, 70 F.3d 1507 (8th Cir. 1995);United States v.Shryock,342F.3d948(9thCir.2003);UnitedStatesv.Ross,33F.3d1507(11thCir.1994);UnitedStatesv.Edmond,52F.3d1080(D.C.Cir.1995);see generally Christopher Keleher, The Repercussions of AnonymousJuries,44U.S.F.L.Rev.531,570n.1(2010).

[7] Lia Eustachewich, Judge grants request for anonymous jury in alQaeda terrorist’s trial, New York Post (June 21, 2016, 7:08 PM),https://nypost.com/2016/06/21/judge-grants-request-for-anonymous-jury-in-al-qaeda-terrorists-trial/.

[8]AshbyJones&NathanKoppel,AnonymousLadiesandGentlemenof the Jury, The Wall Street Journal (July 12, 2010, 12:01 AM),http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704799604575357443655839472.

[9]See,e.g.,GannettCo. v.State, 571A.2d735 (Del.1990) (holdingthat the news media do not “have a qualified first amendment right torequire announcement of jurors’ names during a highly publicized firstdegree murder trial, even though the parties have full access to suchinformation”).

[10] Keleher, supra, note 6 at 532 (writing that “if jurors conflateanonymitywith a criminal defendant’s dangerousness, the right to a fair

trialiseviscerated”).[11] For just one example, see Ray Sanchez,Aaron Hernandez jury:

'Emotional toll on all of us,' CNN (Apr. 17, 2015, 10:18 AM),http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/16/us/aaron-hernandez-jurors-interview/.

[12]UnitedStatesv.Blagojevich,612F.3d558,561(7thCir.2010).[13]SeeKeleher,supranote6,at531(writingthat“[t]hedefinitionof

an ‘anonymous jury’ is a shifting one”);Dinkins, 691 F.3d at 371 (“Theterm‘anonymousjury’doesnothaveonefixedmeaning.”).

[14]UnitedStatesv.Black,483F.Supp.2d618,624(N.D.Ill.2007).[15]Dinkins,691F.3dat371.[16]SeeShryock,342F.3dat970;Ross,33F.3dat1519.[17]UnitedStatesv.Paccione,949F.2d1183,1192(2dCir.1991).[18]Ross,33F.3dat1520.[19]28U.S.C.§1863(b)(7).[20]Id.[21]Ross,33F.3dat1519.[22]74F.3d562,565(5thCir.1996).[23]Dinkins,691F.3dat371.[24]See,e.g.,GannettCo.,565A.2dat899(“[I]nterventionbythenews

mediainacriminalproceeding,forthelimitedpurposeofprotectingtheirFirstAmendment rights, appears to be themost desirable procedure forprovidingajudicialresolutionofthoserights.”)

[25]SeegenerallyStateexrel.BeaconJournalPubl'gCo.v.Bond,98OhioSt.3d146,156(2002);Peoplev.Mitchell,233Mich.App.604,605-06(Mich.Ct.App.1999).

[26]448U.S.555(1980).[27]Id.at580(citationsandinternalquotationmarksomitted).[28]GlobeNewspaperCo.v.SuperiorCourt,457U.S.596(1982).[29] Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California (“Press-

EnterpriseI”),464U.S.501(1984).[30] Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California (“Press-

Enterprise II”), 478U.S.1 (1986);ElVocerodeP.R. v.PuertoRico, 508U.S.147(1993).

[31]Press-EnterpriseII,478U.S.at8.[32]Id.[33]United States v.Wecht, 537 F.3d 222, 234 (3dCir. 2008);Times

MirrorCo.v.UnitedStates,873F.2d1210,1212(9thCir.1989).

[34]Press-EnterpriseI,464U.S.at510.[35]Id.[36]SeeGlobeNewspaperCo.,457U.S.at607;Press-EnterpriseI,463

U.S.at510.[37]537F.3d222.[38]675F.Supp.719(D.Mass.1987).[39]592Pa.42 (2007) (holding there isaqualifiedFirstAmendment

rightofaccesstojurornamesbutnotaddresses).[40]98OhioSt.3d146.[41]233Mich.App.604(Mich.Ct.App.1999).[42]537F.3dat224,236.[43]Id.at235.[44]BeaconJournal,98OhioSt.3dat157.Interestingly, theSupreme

CourtofOhio inBeaconJournal also interpreted theCourt’sholding inPress-Enterprise I as requiring the First Amendment right of access toattachtojurornames.Id.at156.AccordingtotheOhiohighcourt,juroridentityisacomponentofvoirdire,whichtheCourtinPress-EnterpriseIheldaqualifiedFirstAmendmentrightofaccessattachesto.Thisreadingof Press-Enterprise I was rejected by the Third Circuit in Wecht. SeeWecht,537F.3dat234n.24.

[45] Id.;seealsoLong, 592 Pa. at 59 (writing that historical practice“support[s]aconclusionthatjurors’namesweregenerallyavailabletothepublic,sincethepracticewasto‘call’thejuryforward”).

[46]675F.Supp.719.[47]Id.at722.[48]Id.[49]Wecht,537F.3dat238(quoting In reGlobeNewspaperCo., 920

F.2d88,94(1stCir.Mass.1990)).[50]Id.at239.[51]Id.[52]BeaconJournal,98OhioSt.3dat158.[53]Id.(citingRichmondNewspapers,448U.S.at569-72).[54]Id.[55]Doherty,675F.Supp.at723.[56]Wecht,537F.3dat239.[57]Doherty,675F.Supp.at725.[58]920F.2dat91.

[59]Id.at97;seealsoFujita,470Mass.at486(writingthattherightofaccesstoalistidentifyingthenamesofjurorscanbewithheldonly“onajudicial findingofgoodcause,whichmay includea riskofharm to thejurorsortotheintegrityoftheirservice....”).

[60] Mitchell, 233 Mich. App. at 629; see also United States v.Blagojevich, 612F.3d 558, 561 (7thCir. 2010) (writing at “[a]nonymousjuries are permissible when the jurors' safety would be jeopardized bypublic knowledge, or the defendant has attempted to bribe or intimidatewitnessesorjurors”).

[61]SeegenerallyBlack,483F.Supp.2dat630-31.[62]571A.2d735.[63]Id.at783.[64]Id.[65]Id.at745.[66]Id.at748(emphasisinoriginal).[67]Id.at750.[68] Id. at 751. This conclusion contradicts the opinion of the Third

CircuitinWecht,adecisioninwhichthecourtstated:The prospect that the press might publish background stories

about the jurors is not a legally sufficient reason to withhold thejurors’ names from the public. Although such stories might makesome jurors lesswilling to serveormoredistracted from the case,thisisanecessarycostoftheopennessofthejudicialprocess.Wecht,537F.3dat240.[69]435U.S.589,597(1978).[70]Long,592Pa.at51n.6;butseeLeeLevineetal.,Newsgathering

andtheLaw,§5.01(4thEd.MatthewBender&Company2011) (“Whilecommon law balancing is typically not perceived to be as exacting asconstitutionalreview,thecommonlawrighthaswidelybeenconstruedtocreate a presumption of access that often rivals the standards courtstraditionallyapplyintheFirstAmendmentcontext”(citationsomitted)).

[71]841F.2d74,75(4thCir.1988).[72]Id.AlthoughtheFourthCircuitbaseditsholdingonthecommon

law right of access, the court was clearly impacted by the FirstAmendment,notingspecificallythat“[w]henthejurysystemgrewupwithjuriesofthevicinage,everybodykneweverybodyonthejuryandwemaytake judicial notice that this is yet so in many rural communities

throughoutthecountry.”Id.;seealsoFujita,470Mass.at489(concludingthat“ajurorlistisacourtrecord....”).

[73]612F.3dat563.[74]592Pa.at52.[75]Id.[76]Id.[77]71N.Y.2d146,153n.4(1987).[78]Estesv.Texas,381U.S.532,588(1965)(Harlan,J.,concurring);

seealsoRichmondNewspapers,448U.S.at572(internalquotationmarksomitted) (“[It] is not unrealistic even in this day to believe that publicinclusion.. .hopefullypromotesconfidenceinthefairadministrationofjustice.”).

[79]BeaconJournal,98OhioSt.3dat159.[80]InreGlobeNewspaperCo.,920F.2dat97.