A few years ago, I was a guest on the Inside the War Room podcast. I was promoting Grievous Deeds and had a fun conversation with the host, Ryan Ray.  He was shocked when I said newspapers in 1900 often published jurors’ names and addresses in advance of a trial.

I remembered that conversation when I saw this picture of a 1906 Alabama jury, with a few court officers.

No wonder the host was surprised. The Post and Courier is South Carolina’s largest newspaper. Can you imagine if they published the names and addresses of the jurors at the Alex Murdaugh trial? They would be sued into oblivion. It would look like doxxing, opening the door to any number of unsavory consequences.

The mindset in 1900 was different. Being selected to serve on a jury was an honor. Society trusted your judgement and character.  Your community was proud of you. The courts treated jurors like respected guests, often supplying them with nice cigars.

When anarchist Leon Czolgosz was tried for assassinating William McKinley in 1901,  his jurors were named. Their photograph, posing with the police who arrested Czolgosz, was reproduced widely.

Today few people are overcome with delight when they receive a jury summons. And courts are not the gracious hosts they once were.

And what is the result? I could see it from a few different perspectives.

How you treat people matters a lot. People live up (or down) to your expectations. When jurors were honored and respected, maybe they took their role more seriously. If you were known to be a juror, you may feel compelled to pay extra close attention and be as fair as possible.

But jurors might become overly punitive. If I was a juror on a murder trial and I acquitted the defendant, I’d be concerned if there was a ghost of a chance he might commit murder in the future. I wouldn’t be held legally responsible but people would blame me for setting him free.

It’s also possible the things we fear today were happening then. The verdicts were not the result of thoughtful juries but of bribery and intimidation.

What do you think? Is this shift away from publicly naming and honoring jurors a good thing?

Quick note, I refer to jurors as men because nearly all juries were exclusively male. One exception occurred in 1919 when a Cleveland, Ohio judge created a non-binding female advisory jury. Their conclusions might be an interesting case study! See For the Love of Mr. Buttery.