Who’s Reading the Jurors’ Notes? A Confidentiality Breach Hiding in Plain Sight

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inCourt Reporting, Judicial Ethics WatchTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

After a jury trial concludes, courtroom protocol doesn’t just fade into formality—it matters. So when I recently witnessed a courtroom assistant and clerk casually flipping through jurors’ notepads after the verdict had been rendered, I paused. And so should you.

These weren’t just blank steno pads or unused legal pads. They contained handwritten notes, questions, and doodles from jurors who had just completed their solemn duty in a civil trial. Notes that, by law and tradition, are for the jurors’ eyes only—and should never be read by court staff, attorneys, or the public.

🔐 Juror Notes Are Not the Court’s to Keep

Most courts allow jurors to take notes during trial to help them recall facts and testimony during deliberations. These notes, however, are strictly personal and temporary.

Under California Rules of Court, Rule 2.1031, for example:

“Any notes taken by a juror are for the juror’s personal use and must be destroyed at the end of the trial.”

This is not optional. It is not a suggestion. It’s a safeguard meant to protect the integrity of deliberations and the privacy of jurors’ thought processes.

Once a verdict is reached and the jury is discharged, their notes are not evidence, not public record, and not up for discussion.

🧾 What I Saw

I observed this incident firsthand. After the jury had been discharged, the courtroom assistant remained at her desk, flipping through the jurors’ notebooks one by one. She appeared to read through their handwritten notes, scribbles, and questions—then walked over to the clerk, showed her one of the juror’s notebooks, and read the contents aloud.

She then returned to her desk and continued reading from the remaining jurors’ notepads, periodically commenting, laughing, and speculating aloud to the clerk about what the jurors were thinking. The entire exchange appeared to be casual and recreational—done purely for entertainment.

This behavior wasn’t a matter of court recordkeeping or evidence review. It was voyeuristic, inappropriate, and a violation of juror confidentiality.

Not only is this a clear breach of protocol, it potentially violates juror confidentiality, undermines public trust in the system, and may even expose the court to legal liability if the contents were sensitive.

🧠 Why It Matters

Jurors are asked to serve with impartiality, honesty, and seriousness. In return, they’re promised privacy. When court personnel treat their personal notes like entertainment or curiosity, it damages the dignity of the process and could deter future jurors from full engagement.

Beyond ethical concerns, reviewing juror notes without a legal basis may:

  • Violate court rules
  • Invite appellate scrutiny
  • Jeopardize future cases if revealed

It doesn’t take malice—just a lapse in understanding or oversight—to erode decades of trust in our judicial institutions.

📬 What Should Happen to Juror Notes?

They should be:

  1. Collected (by bailiff or court staff) after deliberations conclude
  2. Immediately destroyed—typically by shredding
  3. Never read or shared with court staff, attorneys, or the public

Any deviation from this practice should be addressed by judicial leadership immediately.

📣 A Call for Accountability

This article is not meant to assign blame to individuals but to call attention to a procedural gap that may be happening in more courtrooms than we realize.

I have formally reported this incident to the supervising judge and court administrator at the Courthouse. As a Certified Shorthand Reporter, I believe courtroom personnel must be held to the same standards of professionalism and confidentiality that we expect from every other participant in the justice system.

If you witness court staff mishandling juror notes, don’t stay silent. Document it. Report it. These aren’t harmless oversights—they’re breaches of trust that can erode public confidence in the entire judicial process.

Confidentiality is not a courtesy—it’s a constitutional principle tied directly to due process and the legitimacy of our verdicts. In an era where technology threatens to depersonalize justice, let’s at least ensure we honor the confidentiality of the people still showing up: the jurors.

StenoImperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.

Disclaimer

“This article includes analysis and commentary based on observed events, public records, and legal statutes.”

The content of this post is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. All opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are based on publicly available information, industry standards, and good-faith concerns about nonprofit governance and professional ethics. No part of this article is intended to defame, accuse, or misrepresent any individual or organization. Readers are encouraged to verify facts independently and to engage constructively in dialogue about leadership, transparency, and accountability in the court reporting profession.

  • The content on this blog represents the personal opinions, observations, and commentary of the author. It is intended for editorial and journalistic purposes and is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
  • Nothing here constitutes legal advice. Readers are encouraged to review the facts and form independent conclusions.

***To unsubscribe, just smash that UNSUBSCRIBE button below — yes, the one that’s universally glued to the bottom of every newsletter ever created. It’s basically the “Exit” sign of the email world. You can’t miss it. It looks like this (brace yourself for the excitement):

Published by stenoimperium

We exist to facilitate the fortifying of the Stenography profession and ensure its survival for the next hundred years! As court reporters, we've handed the relationship role with our customers, or attorneys, over to the agencies and their sales reps.  This has done a lot of damage to our industry.  It has taken away our ability to have those relationships, the ability to be humanized and valued.  We've become a replaceable commodity. Merely saying we are the “Gold Standard” tells them that we’re the best, but there are alternatives.  Who we are though, is much, much more powerful than that!  We are the Responsible Charge.  “Responsible Charge” means responsibility for the direction, control, supervision, and possession of stenographic & transcription work, as the case may be, to assure that the work product has been critically examined and evaluated for compliance with appropriate professional standards by a licensee in the profession, and by sealing and signing the documents, the professional stenographer accepts responsibility for the stenographic or transcription work, respectively, represented by the documents and that applicable stenographic and professional standards have been met.  This designation exists in other professions, such as engineering, land surveying, public water works, landscape architects, land surveyors, fire preventionists, geologists, architects, and more.  In the case of professional engineers, the engineering association adopted a Responsible Charge position statement that says, “A professional engineer is only considered to be in responsible charge of an engineering work if the professional engineer makes independent professional decisions regarding the engineering work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional engineer’s physical presence at the location where the engineering work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the engineering work.” If we were to adopt a Responsible Charge position statement for our industry, we could start with a draft that looks something like this: "A professional court reporter, or stenographer, is only considered to be in responsible charge of court reporting work if the professional court reporter makes independent professional decisions regarding the court reporting work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional court reporter’s physical presence at the location where the court reporting work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the court reporting work.” Shared purpose The cornerstone of a strategic narrative is a shared purpose. This shared purpose is the outcome that you and your customer are working toward together. It’s more than a value proposition of what you deliver to them. Or a mission of what you do for the world. It’s the journey that you are on with them. By having a shared purpose, the relationship shifts from consumer to co-creator. In court reporting, our mission is “to bring justice to every litigant in the U.S.”  That purpose is shared by all involved in the litigation process – judges, attorneys, everyone.  Who we are is the Responsible Charge.  How we do that is by Protecting the Record.

Leave a comment