This week in public records: Secret Juries
The names of jurors are public records, according to a ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which countered the actions of a Pennsylvania federal judge who kept the juror names from the media in a high-profile trial. Apparently, the 3rd Circuit believes that’s not the norm in federal court, but the reality on the ground is a bit mixed. It’s a different world in state courts, many of which have an explicit ban on releasing the names of jurors.
2 Responses to “This week in public records: Secret Juries”
Leave a Reply
Editors
Editors
Recent Posts
- Private Investigator Research Links – Jan 2012
- Sacramento Sheriff Inmate Release Notification
- Genealogy Research and Family History Resources in the San Francisco Bay Area
- Private Investigator Research Links – Dec 2011
- Private Investigator buzz in 2011 – search strategies, public records, database pitfalls
- Social Security Death Index is now restricted
- Private Investigator Research Links – Nov 2011
- Wildcard your county public record searches
- Private Investigator Research Links – Oct 2011
- Private Investigator Research Links – Sept 2011
Recent Comments
- Takia Woods: I am looking for my father by the...
- americo mercado: lets hope the Sheriffs Office...
- Neil SANKEY: Tamara you are an absolute Gem....
- jodie airey: i am trying to find a friend major...
- Tamara Thompson: All Indiana court case index...
- Patricia Waskom: Web site will not come up. I...
- MISES GONAZLEZ: HELLO IM MOSES GONZALEZ I USED...
- Tamara Thompson: Elementary schools produce...
- Connor: I’m looking for my Kindergaten...
- Billy Quinones: I am very curious as to the...
Categories
- Alabama (7)
- Alaska (3)
- Arizona (20)
- Arkansas (7)
- Blogs (3)
- Business (30)
- California (113)
- Canada (5)
- Cell (6)
- Colorado (13)
- Computer tools (5)
- Conferences (2)
- Connecticut (17)
- Criminal (111)
- D.C. (3)
- Data Brokers (18)
- Databases (76)
- Delaware (6)
- Divorce (2)
- Education (5)
- Florida (32)
- FOIA (8)
- Genealogy (16)
- Georgia (6)
- Government (79)
- Hawaii (3)
- Idaho (6)
- Illinois (18)
- Indiana (8)
- Insurance (2)
- International (22)
- Iowa (14)
- Kansas (6)
- Kentucky (6)
- Legal (3)
- Legislation (54)
- Litigation (23)
- Louisiana (6)
- Maine (6)
- Maryland (11)
- Massachusetts (12)
- Media (3)
- Mexico (1)
- Michigan (9)
- Military (3)
- Minnesota (7)
- Mississippi (4)
- Missouri (16)
- Montana (6)
- Nebraska (4)
- Nevada (11)
- New Hampshire (11)
- New Jersey (16)
- New Mexico (8)
- New York (24)
- North Carolina (9)
- North Dakota (7)
- Ohio (17)
- Oklahoma (7)
- Oregon (13)
- Pennsylvania (25)
- Personal Data (52)
- PI Business (15)
- PIs In the News (52)
- Portals & Directories (5)
- Privacy (22)
- Private Investigator (26)
- Probate (4)
- Professional Licenses (7)
- Public Records (345)
- Puerto Rico (1)
- Real Property (26)
- Recorder (15)
- Reference (24)
- Regulation (22)
- Research Methods (30)
- Rhode Island (3)
- Search Engines (3)
- Social Networks (5)
- South Carolina (6)
- South Dakota (8)
- Spy Gear (4)
- States (277)
- Surveillance (5)
- Telco (40)
- Tennessee (10)
- Texas (18)
- Uncategorized (566)
- Utah (7)
- Vermont (6)
- Virginia (10)
- Vital Records (16)
- Washington (16)
- Web tools (39)
- West Virginia (3)
- Wisconsin (15)
- Workers Comp (3)
- Wyoming (2)






A common misconception among most people and even P.I.s; is that the state courts absolutely have to go by the standards that are set by the federal courts (i.e. court rules, trial procedure, etc., etc.). Many times you will hear P.I. say or see on a P.I.s webpage something to the effect of “Federal Court Rules Apply” This simply NOT so. See the example listed below for the state of Missouri:
———————————————–
James Braddy, Respondent,
v.
Union Pacific Railroad Company, Appellant.
ED81967.
Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District.
August 5, 2003.
In reviewing FELA cases, Missouri courts are bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Heppner v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co., 297 S.W.2d 497, 501 (Mo. banc 1956). However, Missouri courts may apply their own procedural rules, and a motion for new trial under Rule 78.01 is procedural. Zibung v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 776 S.W.2d 4, 5 (Mo. banc 1989). The Missouri Supreme Court stated in Zibung that the trial court has the power to find that the jury verdict is against the weight of the evidence, and that it has broad authority to grant a new trial.
————————————————
It is quite apparent that the Federal Courts allow the state courts to make some of their own rules independent of the Federal Court Rules. In the case cited above, the state of Missouri takes note that the procedural rules in how court is conducted here in Missouri can be decided by the state; REGARDLESS of the Federal Court’s Procedural Rules.
This is worth keeping in mind when we look to the Federal Courts for guidance in state court matters…
Rick.
[...] Go to the author’s original blog: This week in public records: Secret Juries [...]