In two months, Louisiana law will begin limiting public disclosure of jurors’ personal information.
House Bill 55, authored by Rep. Debbie Villio (R-Kenner), passed the House on a 94–2 vote and later cleared the Senate with a 33-0 vote before being signed into by Gov. Jeff Landry on May 22. It goes into effect on August 1 as Act 284.
While the law’s supporters said that jurors face increasing exposure through social media, opponents feared that the move could hurt defendants who were wrongly convicted, when juror interviews or a review of jury composition often reveal improprieties in how cases were deliberated or how juries were chosen.
Under the new law, jurors’ names, addresses and other identifying information generally cannot be released unless a judge finds good cause to allow disclosure.
Whoever intentionally violates the Act’s privacy provisions could be fined not more than $1,000, imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.
The bill became necessary as social media and online harassment increasingly exposed jurors in high-profile criminal cases, legislators were told during committee testimony.
“Juries are our last line of defense to help prevent the government from abusing its power. And by creating this scenario where it’s more difficult to assess or determine who was on the jury, it’s just gonna make it more challenging to assess whether or not the government has abused its power.”
— Will Snowden, Director, The Juror Project
“This bill, in essence, modernizes juror protection,” said Tony Clayton, district attorney for the 18th Judicial District Court.
Clayton and other witnesses cited instances of jurors allegedly contacted or intimidated after trials. Supporters argued that the proposal would allow jurors to deliberate more freely without fear their identities could later spread online.
“It would free up a juror to be open to deliberations, if they know that their name is not going to be blasted on social media,” Clayton said.
But the bill could also complicate reviews of jury misconduct and fairness after convictions, opponents said.
“Juries are our last line of defense to help prevent the government from abusing its power,” said Will Snowden, director of The Juror Project. “And by creating this scenario where it’s more difficult to assess or determine who was on the jury, it’s just gonna make it more challenging to assess whether or not the government has abused its power.”
Most states and the federal government already protect juror information, Villio said.
That is true, to a certain extent, Snowden said. “What they don’t have is criminalization for that (juror identity) information being shared. And they also traditionally have exceptions for research and for post-conviction advocacy.”
Without the post-conviction exceptions, the bill could make it more difficult to challenge convictions or to review whether juries fairly reflected the communities they served, Snowden said. “You know, if we want to look back in time to determine the makeup of the jury by race and gender, this bill makes it more difficult to do so.”
Concerns about the proposal’s impact on post-conviction investigations were also raised by Ronald Marshall, Chief Policy Analyst for Voice of the Experienced (VOTE).
Like Snowden, Marshall believes that the proposal could make it harder to investigate claims of jury misconduct after convictions, Marshall said. “If a person claims the jurors discussed the case before the deliberation, or the jurors used racial slurs, a lawyer and a team will have few ways to locate and speak to the jurors after the fact.”
Before a defendant’s legal team can investigate those claims, the new law requires a judge to find “good cause” — or a valid reason — to release juror information.
“So the judge now becomes like the gatekeeper of the jury investigation,” Marshall said.
