The early American jury system empanelled individuals whose identities were known by the community. Indeed, in most situations each juror was familiar with the accused, allowing defendants to hold jurors accountable for the decisions they made behind closed doors. The functional importance of an identifiable jury is as essential today as it was in early colonial society, for it ensures that judgment is rendered by members of the community who are ultimately accountable to the accused. The practical rationale for keeping the names of jurors public is supported by the First Amendment, which guarantees open access to the administration of justice. Proponents of extending the First Amendment to the names of jurors rely, in part, on historical precedent: since the inception of the jury system, the names of jurors have been accessible to the public. The historical convention makes sense from a public policy standpoint, for by allowing the public to verify the composition of the jury, the court promotes the appearance of justice, provides an outlet for community emotion and hostility, and educates the public as to the administration of judicial proceedings. . . .
