State Representative Scott Randolph (D-Orlando) and Central Florida Attorney Mark E. NeJame have unveiled proposed legislation to prohibit Florida jurors from being compensated or profiting from outside sources for information regarding a case in which they have served, as well as legislation exempting the release of juror names from public records unless the juror chooses to do so.
The proposed legislation comes in the wake of the high profile Casey Anthony case and the not guilty verdict returned last week. A Pinellas County jury acquitted the Orlando mother in the murder of her two-year-old daughter, Caylee Anthony.
A proposal that Representative Randolph expects to file would create a “cooling off” period of 270 days immediately following a jurors’ dismissal. During that period, members of a jury are free to disclose information pertaining to the trial but will not be able to profit from those disclosures. The Juror Compensation Bill would make violations to the law a 3rd-degree felony punishable by fines of up to $10,000.
Another measure to be entitled the Juror Protection Act involving a juror’s right to privacy is also under way. Representative Randolph is drafting a proposal, which would keep the names of jurors private, unless the individual chooses to come forward. Florida law does not require records related to juror names to remain sealed after a case is completed.
State Representative Scott Randolph stated: “The purpose of this legislation is to preserve the integrity of the jury process. It balances the First Amendment freedom of speech with the Sixth Amendment guarantee to a fair trial. The United States Supreme Court has always held that the preservation of a fair trial must be maintained at all costs. I believe that means fairness for the state as well as the defendant. But we also will be trying to protect jurors from threatening action for their verdicts.”
Mark E. NeJame further stated: “Every American must receive a fair trial without fear that a juror may be influenced by future monetary considerations. This is a step in that direction. There will be no restrictions on a juror, who after a trial wishes to discuss the case. But a juror does so knowing that they will not be able to profit as a result of their jury service.”
