Cosby trial judge unseals jurors’ names

PHILADELPHIA – Acting on a petition from media organizations, a Montgomery County judge on Wednesday unsealed the names of the jurors at Bill Cosby’s sexual-assault trial, but ordered that they not publicly discuss the deliberations that led to last weekend’s mistrial.

Judge Steven T. O’Neill’s five-page ruling acknowledged that the law gives the media “a qualified First Amendment right to the names of the jurors in this case.” But in the same decision, O’Neill cited concerns, echoed by prosecutors and defense lawyers, that outsize media attention could taint the jury-selection process for Cosby’s retrial, which could occur this year.

He also put in writing the order he gave the 12 jurors and six alternates before discharging them Saturday – that they not share what happened behind closed doors during their marathon deliberations in Norristown.

“Jurors shall not disclose arguments or comments made, or votes cast, by fellow jurors during deliberations,” O’Neill wrote.

Within minutes of the release of the names, reporters were casting out across Allegheny County, flocking to jurors’ homes or trying them by phone, email and even Twitter. None immediately stepped forward or agreed to talk.

“I can’t see how it benefits me,” one of the few who answered his phone said in explaining why he wouldn’t discuss the case. At a home owned by another juror, a woman behind a closed door shouted “Go away!” as a reporter approached.

The reasons behind the jurors’ weeklong deadlock – or how many of them wanted to convict or acquit Cosby of aggravated indecent assault – remain unknown.

One of the six alternate jurors, who sat through the trial but did not participate in deliberations, told a Pittsburgh radio station Monday that if he had a vote, he would have cast it to convict the 79-year-old entertainer on the charges of drugging and assaulting Andrea Constand in 2004.

Judge Jeffrey Manning, president judge of Allegheny County Court, said he had greeted the jurors in Pittsburgh as they returned from Norristown on Saturday evening and reminded them of the order.

“I told them they had a First Amendment right to speak to whomever they choose as long as they are not violating the confidentiality of jury deliberations. They can follow their own conscience,” Manning said Wednesday. “They also have a right to not speak.”

And, the judge said, “they all indicated they didn’t want to talk. They had no interest.”

O’Neill declared the mistrial after the seven men and five women were unable to reach a unanimous verdict following 52 hours of deliberations. Earlier in the case, he had signaled he would release jurors’ names after a verdict, responding to a petition from news outlets led by Philadelphia Media Network, the parent company of the Inquirer, the Daily News and Philly.com.

But O’Neill hesitated after the mistrial, asking prosecutors and the defense team to weigh in. Both District Attorney Kevin R. Steele and lead defense lawyer Brian T. McMonagle opposed the release of the names, saying it could impact a retrial.

“Would it have a chilling effect on future jurors?” O’Neill said at a Tuesday hearing. “We just don’t know.”

Eli Segal, a Pepper Hamilton lawyer representing the media, argued that the names were public records and that any media coverage of deliberations would have marginal impact, “given that the prosecution and the defense have spoken publicly about this case, including evidence that was not heard in court.”

In his ruling, O’Neill said he tried to balance the “rights of the parties to a fair and impartial trial” with the media’s First Amendment rights.

“We applaud Judge O’Neill for taking this important step to uphold our First Amendment right to the names of the jurors,” Stan Wischnowski, executive editor and senior vice president of PMN, said in a statement. “The insights that these jurors can provide are certain to yield a more complete understanding of what went into their respective decisions in this high-profile case.”

But while the judge agreed to release the names – and said any could talk about their own opinions – he said any public discussion of the group deliberations could unfairly shape the jury of the next trial. “Future jurors will be reluctant to speak up or say what they think when deliberating if they fear that what they say during deliberations will not be kept secret,” he wrote.

Whether the jurors were remaining silent because they were ordered to do so or wanted to do so wasn’t immediately clear. Even social-media clues were scarce. Just one panel member, an alternate, appeared to turn to Facebook, and only to chronicle her relief that the trial was over.

“I’m coming home!!!!” Kristen Williams posted a few minutes before 1 p.m. Saturday, about two hours after O’Neill had declared the mistrial. The post was tagged with a Montgomery County location. About five hours later, Williams posted again: “Finally back in Pittsburgh! Thank the Lord.” When a friend asked, she commented: “I was in Philly for the Cosby case . praising God I’m home.”