Completed juror questionnaires from the Chandra Levy trial should be made public, the District’s highest court has ruled.
Prospective jurors in the November 2010 trial of Ingmar Guandique filled out 11-page, 55-question forms that asked their views on gangs, immigrants, Hispanics, prison inmates and other issues that could affect their ability to decide the case fairly.
The Washington Post and other media outlets sought to obtain access to the completed questionnaires for the 12 jurors and four alternates selected to hear the case, but D.C. Superior Court Judge Gerald Fisher denied those requests.
The D.C. Court of Appeals said in a Thursday opinion that it was improper to not make the completed forms public.
“We hold that The Post, as a surrogate for the public, has a presumptive right of access to the jury questionnaires used in this case, and the trial court erred in not recognizing that right,” the opinion said.
Guandique was convicted of first-degree murder in Levy’s May 2001 death and was sentenced to 60 years in prison. Levy’s disappearance and killing generated national headlines in large part because of her relationship with then-U.S. Rep. Gary Condit.
A letter on the questionnaire said the forms would be kept under seal and Fisher said he was reluctant to break that promise. But after media outlets requested the completed forms, he could have explained to jurors that that promise had been made in error, the appeals court wrote.
“Promises of confidentiality in this context are not merely inappropriate; they are constitutionally unsound,” the opinion says. “Such a promise does not trump the First Amendment right of access.”
The government argued that by waiting until mid-trial to file a formal motion, The Post waited too long to request the forms. But the appeals court disagreed, saying the right of public access to the questionnaires isn’t limited to the time of the trial.
“The right of public access is ‘a right that any member of the public can assert,’ whether it is for the purpose of reporting on a trial as it unfolds or researching jury selection ten years later,” the appeals court’s opinion says.
The decision means the forms will eventually be released, though Fisher has the discretion to recall jurors, tell them the forms will be released and redact answers if responses to questions “touch on deeply personal matters.”
