Policy of shielding jurors' names ineffective

In this age of violence against Americans, closing public access to government documents has become the order of the day.

When there's a valid reason for doing so, the public can accept that the action is lessening their exposure. Otherwise, Americans must question losing their access to information that was commonplace just months ago.

The Missouri Supreme Court is gearing up to enforce such a questionable proposal. They want to keep the public and press from discovering the names of jurors in the state's criminal cases.

It stems from the St. Louis case of Ellen Reasonover, who spent 16 years in prison before her murder conviction was set aside. She'd been accused of killing a 19-year-old gas station attendant during a botched robbery in 1983.

Her attorneys alleged that she claimed innocence in a secret jailhouse recording, which contradicted the testimony of jailhouse informers who spoke at Reasonover's trial. Reasonover's conviction was overturned in 1999 by an appeals court after her attorneys presented new evidence, including that tape recording, which had been withheld during her first trial.

Understandably, the case attracted a lot of media attention. Some national television programs wanted the names of jurors in the original trial, probably to find out why they chose to convict an innocent woman primarily on the grounds of testimony from two jailhouse informants facing a laundry list of charges.

But the Missouri Supreme Court is shielding those jurors.

There are several reasons why the ruling is unnecessary and, in some cases, actually could impede justice.

First, as Missouri Press Association's attorney Jean Maneke points out, judges already have the power to shield jurors on a case-by-case basis. If, for instance, jurors had to convict a violent criminal and repeat offender, their names could be kept secret.

Second, the media's primary role is as public watchdog. Journalists are as interested in ferreting out unethical connections or activities as those involved with the legal system -- sometimes more. What's wrong with having that last line of defense against unfair practices?

Third, why shouldn't jurors be held accountable for the decisions they make? It seems only right that those on Reasonover's 1983 jury be asked to explain why they sent an innocent woman to prison for 16 years. Perhaps there's something about the deliberations that would explain their actions.

Fourth, even the most lackadaisical journalist in Cape Girardeau County could probably figure out the names of one or two jurors on a case. In fact, he or she is likely to personally know one or two of them in a county this small.

And finally, the media has proven it can be trusted with delicate information. This newspaper keeps secret the names of victims of sex crimes, even though we often know those names. We also keep the names of juveniles secret unless they are charged with serious felonies or as adults.

The Missouri Supreme Court should act to remove this ineffective and unreasonable policy.