Transparent justice

Release the names of jurors

In a democratic society, the justice system must be transparent. Without that transparency, the fairness of the system is cast into doubt. The people have a right to know the facts about a case of public interest.

That’s why the Pittsburgh PostGazette seeks the names of the jurors in a case that led to the investigation of Allegheny County Common Pleas Court Judge Mark Tranquilli by the state Judicial Conduct Board.

Court administrators are withholding the names, but have offered no explanation as to why.

The law is settled, and except in very rare cases, jurors’ names are released at the end of trials. There is no reason to withhold jurors’ names in the case at hand. President Judge Kim Berkeley Clark should order the release of the jurors’ names at once.

The prime duty of a newspaper is to keep the public informed. The Post -Gazette wants to interview jurors about the trial and Judge Tranquilli’s behavior in the courtroom. The case of Commonwealth v. Lamar Rice wasn’t particularly notable, until allegations against Judge Tranquilli surfaced. Mr. Rice was found not guilty of a drug charge. The judge didn’t like the verdict.

According to a complaint filed against him, he let the jurors know he thought their verdict was wrong. In his chambers, the judge went on a rant against the prosecutor and the verdict. If so, the judge violated rules of conduct for judges.

According to the complaint, after the verdict was read, Judge Tranquilli tossed the verdict slip back at his clerk. The judge told the jurors that he believed the defendant was a drug dealer.

Not only did the judge disrespect the jury, but his rant in chambers took special aim at Juror No.4 — a black woman who wore a head wrap. He was said to refer to her as Aunt Jemima and made other inappropriate comments about the woman.

The attorneys in the case were rightly offended and filed a complaint against the judge. Thus the investigation.

Public interest in the judge’s alleged behavior is strong. Jurors could provide insight on the feel of the courtroom that day. They could discuss the judge’s comments and his demeanor during the trial. They could describe how they felt serving as jurors in his courtroom. Juror No. 4 now knows the comments the judge made about her. She might want to offer her thoughts on those comments.

Access to the names of the jurors would help the Post-Gazette continue a newspaper’s prime duty — to inform the public. Unlike a court, the Post-Gazette cannot force anyone, juror or not, to speak with one of our reporters. That is as it should be. If jurors want to talk to a reporter, they can. If not, that is their right. Usually, people want to tell their story.

As pointed out by Post-Gazette attorney Laurel Gift, the trial is over. The safety of jurors is not a concern. The right of the public to know is paramount to any other concerns in this case. Without the names of the jurors, a newspaper is hampered in doing the job of keeping the public informed.

A secret justice system cannot bring justice. The public has a right to know the facts about this case. The credibility of the justice system is at stake. Release the names of the jurors.