In re Access to Jury Questionnaires, 37 A.3d 879

The Washington Post sought access to the jury questionnaires completed by the sixteen empaneled jurors in Guandique’s Chandra Levy murder trial.
The trial court denied access, citing potential chilling effect on candor and juror privacy; The Post sought intervention to obtain records.
The court later disclosed limited information (age, gender, education, occupation) but withheld the full questionnaires mid-trial.
The Post appealed, arguing a presumptive First Amendment and common law right of public access to voir dire materials.
The district court conducted a formal hearing after the verdict, relying on promises of confidentiality to justify closure and citing juror privacy and candor concerns.
On appeal, the D.C. Court of Appeals reverse and remand, directing procedures under Press-Enterprise I to balance access with privacy and to allow redactions on remand if justified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there is a presumptive right of access to juror questionnaires	Post asserted public access applies to voir dire records.	Government argued timeliness and possible limits on access; reliance on confidentiality promises.	Presumptive right of access applies to jury questionnaires.
Whether the trial court complied with Press-Enterprise I on privacy and alternatives to closure	Court failed to articulate specific privacy interests and consider alternatives to full closure.	Court relied on confidentiality to protect juror privacy and candor.	Court failed to follow required procedures; remand needed with individualized findings and alternatives.
Whether the court’s promise of confidentiality can foreclose public access	Promises of confidentiality are unconstitutional trump cards against access.	Confidentiality promises may be policy concerns but are not constitutional barriers to access.	Promises of confidentiality are unconstitutional and must be overcome on remand.
What remedy on remand is appropriate to balance openness and privacy	Contemporaneous access cannot be restored, but open disclosure should be the default with tailored redactions.	Privacy may justify redactions to protect individuals.	Remand with presumption of disclosure and court-ordered specific, individualized redactions as needed.

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (U.S. (1984)) (presumption of openness and procedures to justify closure)
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (U.S. (1980)) (public trial rights and openness essential to fairness)
Mokhiber v. Davis, 537 A.2d 1100 (D.C. 1988) (distinction between records vs proceedings; constitutional scrutiny on access)
United States v. King, 911 F. Supp. 113 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (case upholding tailored closure to protect candor in a sensitive context)
ABC, Inc. v. Stewart, 360 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2004) (candor concerns alone insufficient to overcome presumption of access)
In re South Carolina Press Ass’n, 946 F.2d 1037 (4th Cir. 1991) (includes juror questionnaires within voir dire for presumption of access)