Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
There is nothing to say the Judge wouldn't have named them after the trial was finished had he accepted the motion.
|
Exactly - after! He chose not through the trial and what did the media do? Try find out, anyway.
That is disgraceful.
It's not uncommon to request the information. It is to refuse the answer being "no".
Quote:
|
This was a routine attempt to make the list known and the judge rejected on security fears. If you Google around you see the media has many examples of these petitions which sometimes are granted and sometimes not.
|
Oh totally - but once the request has been rejected that is usually it. He was correct to refuse the request (or at least it was totally his prerogative), the press and everyone else need to respect that instead of putting more pressure on the judge / jurors etc.
If, (and only
if ) the judge decides to unseal at the end of the trial that is his prerogative. That is all there is to it unless upon appeal the information is disclosed. Juror's are free to do as they please at the end of the trial.