Impounded cases?

Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 04:38 PM by wayward
in

Since I have jury duty next week, I pulled up the court calendar to see whether there were any big trials scheduled.  One case, Doe vs Odle, seemed to be allocated for a lot of time.  But when I looked up case number 05L00080, it just said that the case had been impounded by the court.  What's up with that?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
On June 2nd, 2008 at 05:04 PM, Barrister (not verified) said:

It is a civil case wherein a plaintiff apparently has sought and received permission from the court to file as John or Jane Doe.

The more relevant issue is whether you will be honest enough to disclose to the Court and the parties seeking a fair trial that you have been searching court records in preparation for your jury service. It is hard to imagine a good citizenship explanation for a potential juror to be looking up court records on cases they may be asked to judge.

On June 2nd, 2008 at 05:19 PM, wayward said:

The more relevant issue is whether you will be honest enough to disclose to the Court and the parties seeking a fair trial that you have been searching court records in preparation for your jury service. It is hard to imagine a good citizenship explanation for a potential juror to be looking up court records on cases they may be asked to judge.

Of course I plan to answer voir dire questions truthfully.  There's no need to "imagine" explanations for checking the court calendar.  The circuit clerk's office makes it publicly available on the web so anyone is free to look at it.  If one of the attorneys or the judge wanted to excuse me for this reason, that would be more than fine.

On June 3rd, 2008 at 05:23 AM, Barrister (not verified) said:

It is a well settled principal that "triers of fact", whether that be jurors or a judge should follow rules of what facts can be properly considered in deciding a verdict. A potential juror who, in anticipation of serving on jury duty, takes it upon himself or herself to read the docket sheets of cases they may be called upon to decide exposes themselves to facts which should not properly be considered in deciding the facts. We didn't just make up this system, it is the product of centuries of civilization refining jurisprudence. Wayward and anonymous 7:39 apparently think the rules don't matter. It is fair to say that the chance either lawyer would think it necessary to inquire of a potential juror whether they had been reading the docket sheets is remote. I think Wayward has expressed an unusual interest in specifically the background of cases Wayward may be called upon to decide. When asked whether she knows any of the parties or has heard about the case, will Wayward be tempted to parse the question to see if she can keep her investigation secret? I don't know, but it is unusual behavior for a juror. When an umpire is called upon to decide balls and strikes, is it helpful if he also knows the little leaguer's grades and religious beliefs? Would that "interest in the community" help answer the question that we put to the little league umpire?

On June 3rd, 2008 at 09:13 AM, wayward said:

Wayward and anonymous 7:39 apparently think the rules don't matter. It is fair to say that the chance either lawyer would think it necessary to inquire of a potential juror whether they had been reading the docket sheets is remote. I think Wayward has expressed an unusual interest in specifically the background of cases Wayward may be called upon to decide. When asked whether she knows any of the parties or has heard about the case, will Wayward be tempted to parse the question to see if she can keep her investigation secret? I don't know, but it is unusual behavior for a juror. When an umpire is called upon to decide balls and strikes, is it helpful if he also knows the little leaguer's grades and religious beliefs? Would that "interest in the community" help answer the question that we put to the little league umpire?

Exactly what "rules" did I break by looking at the court schedule to see whether there were any high-profile trials scheduled next week?  Please be specific.  Why on earth would I want to "keep [my] investigation secret?"  If looking at the schedule would get me out of jury duty, that would be fine with me, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way.  Of course, the specific case that I asked about was impounded, which meant that there was no information available through the case lookup system other than the name of one of the parties.  So any prospective juror that gets brought in for voir dire will know more about the case than I do.

On June 5th, 2008 at 01:38 PM, wayward said:

OK, I got an adequate answer.  Turns out that there are some situations, e.g., when a child is a party to a case, that one side is allowed to be anonymous and the case is impounded by the court.  Some impounded cases are interesting, e.g., http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/840/196/ , but it sounds like most of them aren't too newsworthy.