Biggest News aggregator with 200 million news articles | vimarsana.com
one hand, he wants two and has to protect this jury and the amount of detail that's publicly available about these jurors would certainly allow anyone who knows them, and either friends or acquitted sainz's to say, wow, that sounds like it's so and so, and it sounds like that's exactly what happened in this case. and this person was hit with several incoming messages saying, is that you, which caused this juror to feel like she couldn't serve and she couldn't serve in partially. so that's one concern. on the other hand, there's the first amendment and the judge can't just shut all this information out from the press and the public. now it sounded like what brings you said is the judge has said i'm going to keep some of the specifics about these jurors. for example, the name of the specific company where they work. that's going to be redacted, meaning the lawyers will know it, but we in the media and the public will not know. and so it looks like the judge is trying to limit the most specific information that gets out there. now, again, there could be a first amendment concern with this. this isn't my decision to make on behalf of all the media, but