No constitutional right to juror names

In recent reports the Daily Herald has complained that Judge James Zagel, in the Rod Blagojevich trial, refuses to divulge the names of prospective jurors, and the Daily Herald declares that in the name of its constitutional right to freedom of the press, it has a right to know the jurors' identity.

I believe this is an erroneous interpretation of the constitution. Indeed, the Daily Herald does have freedom of the press, and that means that it may publish any and all information that it possesses or has come across. But freedom of the press does not give the Daily Herald any right to demand information that it cannot come up with on its own. Of course, if some law requires that a government agency must make public every aspect of its proceedings, the press may demand that this be done. But otherwise, the press on its own cannot order disclosure of information that a government body wishes not to reveal.

The Sixth Amendment to the constitution states that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury," but I cannot find anything in the constitution that says that "public trial" means that this is also the right of the press to demand that a trial be held in public. It seems to me that if both parties to a lawsuit would like it to be a private matter, then the judge may hand down an order so declaring, and this does not constitute an abridgment of freedom of the press.

Theodore M. Utchen

Wheaton