Juror master list can be disclosed, panel rules

Data from a county's master list of potential jurors is "disclosable as public record," according to a recent appellate ruling.

A unanimous panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal, Division Five, on Dec. 9 overruled a Marin County judge in Alfaro v. Superior Court of Marin, 2020 DJDAR 13115 (Cal. App. 1st Dist., filed Feb. 18, 2020).

The case involved a murder defendant's contention that Hispanics were significantly underrepresented in the county's juror pool compared to the general population. Attorneys for Edenilson Alfaro based their analysis on surnames, but lacked the county's data "about the race or ethnicity" of its prospective jurors.

They specifically sought information from the master and qualified lists of jurors' last names and zip codes in order to support their analysis. The Marin County district attorney's office and the jury commissioner argued releasing the lists would endanger jurors' private information.

The opinion by the division's acting presiding justice, Mark B. Simons, found the case hinged on the lower court's interpretation of "Pantos v. City and County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 258 (Pantos), which held a court's 'master list of qualified jurors ... is a judicial record subject to public inspection and copying.'"

Marin County Superior Court Judge Andrew E. Sweet found "Pantos was no longer good law in light of subsequent statutory developments." This was a reference to law concerning jury pools passed in the years since. But Simons wrote, "Pantos is still good law, at least as to the names and zip codes appearing on master jury lists."

"It's a welcome decision that we hope will encourage litigators, especially given the changes in the law, to look carefully in this new census decade at the representativeness of their jury systems," said John T. Philipsborn, who helped argue the case for Alfaro.

The San Francisco-based Philipsborn noted his co-counsel in the case is Michael N. Burt, who also argued for Pantos. He said they have both been involved in court arguments around juries for decades, mainly in death penalty and what he called "political cases." Philipsborn said the modern movement to make juries more representative largely grew out of cases against the Black Panthers in California in the 1960s and 1970s.

He added that courts around the state interpret these laws daily, and don't always come to the same conclusions.

"The question is how much can you shine a light on an individual courthouse," Philipsborn said. "There is a big difference between what the law says and what judges and court administrators are willing to do."

The California Legislature has been aggressively passing laws about jury pools in recent years. Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed Senate Bill 592, which adds taxpayer information to voter registration and Department of Motor Vehicles records that must be considered for a jury pool to be representative. A bill Newsom signed in 2019 will allow many felons to serve on juries if they have completed their parole. SB 310's supporters said this change will diversify juries in areas where higher percentages of people of color have prior convictions.

The lower court ruling, however, was more concerned with changes made to the state's Trial Jury Selection and Management Act in the late 1980s. Assembly Bill 2617, enacted in 1988, wrote jurors' right to privacy into law and stated a "jury commissioner shall not release, disclose, or provide access to, any information gathered in connection with jury selection or service" unless a petitioner could show good cause.

Simons found that good cause was shown in this case and that courts face a high bar when seeking to block access to names and zip codes.

"Courts do have the inherent power to control their own records to protect jurors' privacy, litigants' rights or to protect the public from injury," he wrote. "Nothing has been presented to justify nondisclosure. The law favors maximum public access to judicial proceedings and court records."

A spokesperson for Attorney General Xavier Becerra's office said they were reviewing the case and deferred comment to the Marin County district attorney's office, which did not return a call.