PEA RIDGE — Confidence in our courts is a vital piece of the Great American Experiment. Our courts foster that confidence when trials are public events, open to anyone with an interest.
Yet, last week, we witnessed something we’ve never seen before: The public was excluded from the jury selection portion of the murder trial of Danny Thomas, who stood accused of murdering Darrell Bone.
The trial, in McDonald County, Mo., (on a change of venue from Newton County, Mo.) was presided over by Judge John LePage.
LePage defends his action to clear the courtroom because there were so many people in the jury pool the room could not hold everyone. So, out went family members, community members and the one person who could serve as the proxy eyes and ears for all those people: a newspaper reporter. The reporter offered to sit on the floor, or stand for the duration, or occupy the single unoccupied empty chair. No dice.
The judge kindly noted that he had no problem with us getting a transcript.
The day the trial ended - with Thomas’ conviction of second degree murder and armed criminal action - we found out the price: $612.50.
Judge LePage worried that having family members sitting in close proximity to potential jurors could prove problematic because the potential jurors might overhear conversation, or might feel uncomfortable. We find all those concerns valid, and laud him for wanting to safeguard the process. He succeeded.
But in doing so, he also failed the process by creating a situation in which the fairness of the court comes into question. He did so by excluding the public - especially the family members who have a vestedinterest in seeing the trial unfold. We understand there are portions of trials that must occur outside the jury’s view, and sometimes the public’s view. But those moments are extraordinary. There was nothing extraordinary about jury selection.
Think this is much ado about nothing?
We wonder how the family of Mr. Thomas feels about the jury. Maybe the attorney they were paying to defend him did a terrible job during jury selection, leaving more-qualified people off the jury. But they don’t know because they didn’t get to watch. As we found out, if they want to know what happened they can find out; it’ll just cost them $612.50. That’s a steep price for what they should know for free.
Here’s a more concrete reason: During closing arguments, attorneys referred to things that happened during jury selection. Those not included in the inner circle had no idea what the attorney was talking about.
We’re starting to get the feeling that we don’tneed to worry because the government is handling it. But don’t forget one of the greatest tenets of the United States of America: We the People are the government.
Judge LePage could have taken steps to see that his concerns were addressed while not cutting the public out of the process.
We suggest:
◊Split the jury pool into halves, with one session in the morning, the other in the afternoon. (The judge himself said if there had only been 40 called, he would not have cleared the courtroom.)
◊Move jury selection to a larger location.
◊Open the door to the hallway and let the public eavesdrop.
Yes, all those suggestions mean more work for the public officials involved in the trial. But conducting public business to foster confidence in the system should be worth the extra work.
Public confidence should not come with a price tag to the public. In this case, $612.50.
Opinion, Pages 4 on 08/01/2012