Judge Orders Jurors to Disclose Prescription Drug History

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:01:50 PM EST
Tags: Anna Nicole Smith (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

This is not a good sign for our jury system. The judge in the upcoming Anna Nicole Smith trial of Drs. Sanjeep Kapoor and Khristine Eroshevich and boyfriend Howard K. Stern has ordered prospective jurors to disclose their medical histories, including listing the prescription drugs they have taken. The three are charged with conspiring to provide Smith with sedatives and opiates. (They are not charged with causing her death.)

While the judge has nixed cameras in the courtroom, he has ordered jurors names be kept secret from the lawyers in the case and is going to have his staff periodically check the jurors' Facebook and social media sites. [More...]

Perry plans to keep the names of jurors secret from lawyers, who complained that would make it impossible to track whether they were blogging or reporting on the trial via social networking websites.

The judge agreed to ask prospects if they have blogs or social media accounts. He also intends to ask his staff to check periodically to make sure jurors are not blogging about the case.

Juror duty is a public service. It should not lead to a wholesale invasion of privacy. Juror questionnaires have been leaked before. Who wants to see their medical details posted on TMZ? And what about oral questioning of jurors who disclose various pill use in their questionnaires? Surely they can't plan on doing that in open court, and voir dire is supposed to be open. Almost every juror is going to have some medical issue they don't want to air publicly.

Whatever happened to skillful voir dire by lawyers to weed out the stealth jurors seeking to serve to sell the story later?

Also troubling: The prosecutor told the judge she was filing documents under seal just so TMZ wouldn't get them. She asked for a gag order, which was denied.

Rose made the unusual disclosure that she was filing all of her legal documents under seal to keep them from falling into the hands of celebrity website TMZ. The judge said he was going through her sealed motions and unsealing many of them.

"I don't think you should file under seal just because you don't want the media to see it," Perry said.

"Everything I file ends up on TMZ," Rose said.
"Who cares?" said the judge.
"Our jury pool is out there," said the prosecutor.

"Do we even want people who watch TMZ on the jury?" asked the judge.
"We're going to get them," Rose said.
"I hope not," said the judge.

< Politics At Its Ugliest And Stupidest | Rod Blagojevich May Not Testify After All >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Judge Orders Jurors to Disclose Prescription Drug History | 36 comments (36 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

how many of you (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by cpinva on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:49:57 PM EST

remember your entire prescription drug history? the judge's demand is absurd, and a needless invasion of the prospective juror's privacy. there have been other cases of this nature, and i don't recall a similar requirement being imposed on the potential jurors.

Easy to Fix (none / 0) (#11)
by squeaky on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:08:13 PM EST

Soon we will all be required to have a info chip in our neck or upper arm that would have every bit of medical, legal, tax, personal financial transactions...

You would be scanned upon entering the courthouse. Saves time, money and the need to ask a lot of silly questions.


Big Dog (none / 0) (#14)
by Untold Story on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:23:03 PM EST

(my rescue dog) just got his chip. All anyone need do is get on the website and all his medical stuff is on there (since I own him only - he is seven, so the first seven years are a mystery, except for his scars, his fear of darkness, closed doors, and being alone - rather neurotic, but I love him).

Although you comment is funny - it may be where we are going!


Not Funny, imo (none / 0) (#15)
by squeaky on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:43:03 PM EST

And people are already getting chips implanted for work etc.

A human microchip implant is an integrated circuit device or RFID transponder encased in silicate glass and implanted in the body of a human being. A subdermal implant typically contains a unique ID number that can be linked to information contained in an external database, such as personal identification, medical history, medications, allergies, and contact information.

wiki

Downside is that the chips can cause cancer as a BushCo approved company found out....

In 2002, the VeriChip Corporation (known as the "Positive ID Corporation" since November 2009) received preliminary approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to market its device in the U.S. within specific guidelines. The device received FDA approval in 2004, and was marketed under the name VeriChip or VeriMed. In 2007, it was revealed that nearly identical implants had caused cancer in hundreds of laboratory animals.[5], a revelation that had a devastating impact on the company's stock price. Some time between May and July 2010, the Positive ID Corporation discontinued marketing the implantable human microchip.

Oh come on....You can't resist a smear (none / 0) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 08:59:43 PM EST

Bush controlled the FDA?

lol


: Yes BushCo (none / 0) (#18)
by squeaky on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 09:17:31 PM EST

Scott Silverman, Chairman of the Board of VeriChip Corporation, has proposed implanting the company's RFID tracking tags in immigrant and guest workers. He made the statement on national television on May 16.
Silverman was being interviewed on "Fox & Friends." Responding to the Bush administration's call to know "who is in our country and why they are here," he proposed using VeriChip RFID implants to register workers at the border, and then verify their identities in the workplace. He added, "We have talked to many people in Washington about using it...."

Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson has volunteered to get an RFID electronic chip implant to show the world just how safe the new technology is.
Tommy Thompson
The former secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services in President Bush's first term sees it as a potentially life-saving move because the chip will have details of his medical history should he ever be in an accident.
Thompson will be among the first humans to get the chip. Pets have been routinely chipped at pounds and veterinarians' offices in recent years....
Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson has volunteered to get an RFID electronic chip implant to show the world just how safe the new technology is.
Tommy Thompson
The former secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services in President Bush's first term sees it as a potentially life-saving move because the chip will have details of his medical history should he ever be in an accident.
Thompson will be among the first humans to get the chip. Pets have been routinely chipped at pounds and veterinarians' offices in recent years....
WorldNutDaily
Tuesday, July 31, 2007

WASHINGTON -- A new Defense Department-funded study is aimed at developing a microchip the size of a grain of rice that would be implanted in soldiers wounded on the battlefield, but the idea raises privacy concerns for at least one major veterans group.
"People are going to say, 'What about my personal rights?' ... Even though you shelve some of your rights as a citizen (in the military), you don't shelve them all," said Joe Davis, spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars....
The $1.6 million contract was awarded to Clemson's Center for Bioelectronics, Biosensors and Biochips; the University of Alabama at Birmingham; and Telesensors Inc., of Knoxville, Tenn.
Faux

Homeland Security Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson announced Tuesday that the government will begin testing radio frequency identification technology at this crossing and four others by midsummer.
Weeding out potential terrorists, drug dealers and other criminals from shoppers, truckers and tourists who regularly pass through border crossings takes time. The RFID technology is designed to reduce the wait while giving authorities more information on who's coming into the country and who's leaving.
"We do not keep track of who enters this country," Hutchinson said while standing in an inspection booth at a crossing that is used each year by 5.4 million pedestrians and 3.9 million vehicles. "We need to have a comprehensive system, and that that's what our pilot (test) will do."

So the next crime war may be (none / 0) (#22)
by Untold Story on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 10:25:54 PM EST

people murdering others for their chips!


: Nah (none / 0) (#23)
by squeaky on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 10:45:06 PM EST

They are easily scannable from twenty feet away... just like the new US passports.

No kidding (none / 0) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 08:50:25 PM EST

I'm forty something, there's been a lot of drugs I've taken :) Josh has had about sixteen surgeries. I couldn't even hope to tell you everything he's taken. I can only do my best at this time. What if during the trial you hear a drug and realize that you've taken it and forgot to list it?


: Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 09:54:20 PM EST

...I can't even remember the ones I'm currently on, much less the myriad from decades before. It would probably be easier to list the ones I haven't taken...

Refuse to disclose (none / 0) (#1)
by caseyOR on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:28:14 PM EST

So, what happens if a prospective juror refuses to disclose medical/drug history? Is that person dismissed from jury duty? Cited for contempt? Fined? Jailed until ze complies?

Is there any precedent for this kind of ruling by a judge?

I should have read more carefully (none / 0) (#2)
by caseyOR on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:30:50 PM EST

Prospective jurors who decline to disclose will be dismissed. At least they won't be jailed. I wonder if they will be told that they can refuse to give up that information?


They ask questions (none / 0) (#3)
by CoralGables on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:31:31 PM EST

of jurors all the time that are relevant to the case at hand.


Contempt (none / 0) (#4)
by squeaky on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:33:18 PM EST

I got a long invasive questionnaire from a judge who was building a jury pool, or so it seemed, for a particular case. Even though I had recently fulfilled my jury duty, this judge claimed that if I did not fill in all the information I would be in contempt of court, fined and possibly face jail time.

It is not fair that the citizens should be required to divulge embarrassing or incriminating personal data to the government or face penalties.


You don't have to be (none / 0) (#5)
by NYShooter on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:41:24 PM EST

a lawyer to "know" this just can't be legally defensible? What if adultry was involved, would you have list all your extra-marital affairs?

And so on.

It just can't be allowed.


That judge must read your comments here (none / 0) (#6)
by BTAL on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:48:09 PM EST

I wish (none / 0) (#10)
by NYShooter on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:06:58 PM EST

especially the "all" part. lol


Actually was replying to squeaky (none / 0) (#12)
by BTAL on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:08:57 PM EST

but, if you are "confessing"... :)


: I, respectfully (none / 0) (#13)
by NYShooter on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:19:53 PM EST

direct the jurors to focus on the "I wish" portion of my fantasy, errr, my testimony.

In California, there is a constitutional (none / 0) (#8)
by MKS on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:04:02 PM EST

right of privacy in the state constitution.

I can't imagine a judge forcing someone to divulge this kind of information.....The prospective juror would just be excused, I assume.....How could a juror be able to deliberate fairly after being cited in contempt for failing to divulge confidential information?


: A "Lesson" For the Future (none / 0) (#9)
by squeaky on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:06:18 PM EST

.How could a juror be able to deliberate fairly after being cited in contempt for failing to divulge confidential information?
It would just be a lesson as to what non-cooperation would look like if you refused again on another case.

Don't understand why the judge would (none / 0) (#19)
by Untold Story on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 09:23:44 PM EST

wants to know in the first place - most people have taken prescription drugs. And if he isn't worried about sealed motions going on TMZ - don't think he would be too careful with the jury pool information getting leaked either.

Wow - there may be a real problem in getting enough jurors in the future. No one wants or should be subjected to such invasion of privacy.

Trying to think/remember (none / 0) (#21)
by NYShooter on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 10:13:32 PM EST

but I read a portion of an article about some of the questions that doctors will have to fill out in Obama's new "electronic," medical data collecting program. Don't remember the questions, other than it startled the M.D's and the implication was that the information was not medically vital, yet was mandatory.

Not an alarmist, but too many things heading in this direction. Rembember the police wanting to be able to measure the temperature of your house/apt. to "see" if you're growing something other than tulips downstairs?


Judge wants to know... (none / 0) (#24)
by kdog on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 08:32:10 AM EST

because a juror who shares Anna's affection for the pills might be sympathetic to the defense.

They ain't gonna throw you off for taking antibiotics, but if you've flopped some 'Cets you're getting dismissed.

My question is, wouldn't somebody who has never taken drugs similar to Ms. Smith be potentially as biased for the prosecution as a pill popper might be for the defense?

The invasion of privacy is most troubling...why not just ask if there is any reason you can't be an impartial juror and call it a day? It's an impossible task to keep all bias out of the jury box no matter how invasive the process gets.


The Problem with This Nonsense is..... (none / 0) (#25)
by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 09:05:59 AM EST

...that people who share "Anna's affection for the pills" aren't going to tell the truth. It could amount to self incrimination and could possibly cut off a junkies future supplies. That's not even considering the pill poppers who don't have prescriptions, aka no official medical history.

Plus is the judge going to let a known drug abusing juror sit if both parties have used all their... what ever they call when they dismiss a juror ??


Why not... (none / 0) (#26)
by kdog on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 09:22:42 AM EST

a drug user is still a citizen and a peer. Even a drug abuser...unless the court can prove they're stoned off their face in the box and it will effect their judgement, I don't see why they shouldn't serve.

It is nonsense to ask a loaded question with so much incentive to lie...if you answer "yeah, I love me some Vicodin", do you have to worry about the cops tailing you home?


: Urine and Blood (none / 0) (#35)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 03:03:17 PM EST

Before sitting in the box, on a daily basis... is where this is heading.. imo

Understand, but Anna N. use of drug isn't (none / 0) (#29)
by Untold Story on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:54:51 AM EST

0n trial - isn't it the doctors who gave prescriptions to Anna under false names; and Howard Stern administrating drugs that he would have no knowledge about?

So, if Anna took illegal drugs isn't the question - it should be focused on the ethics of the doctors involved, and, of course, Howard Stern - who knowingly, or unknowingly may have contributed to her death and to her son's death - he had the most to gain (or, at least he thought he had at the time, seems to be the story).

Anna's drug addiction isn't part of the trial, imo, and, imo, it would seem the judge is making it the center of the trial rather than on the real issue of professional ethics in accordance with the medical oath.


So, what I am trying to say (none / 0) (#30)
by Untold Story on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:01:19 PM EST

is the question should be - to all doctors in the jury pool - have you prescribed medicine under false names? And, as it relates to HS, the jury pool should be asked if they administered drugs to people over a period of time that were prescribed for themselves? And, if the answer would be yes, they would be free to leave.


Can't do that (none / 0) (#31)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:21:21 PM EST

That would be a judge asking a potential juror to incriminate themselves, which would violate their Fifth Amendment rights.


But my point is not about taking (none / 0) (#34)
by Untold Story on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:43:58 PM EST

prescription drugs, or any kind of drugs, but this case has to do with prescribing drugs under false names - and administrating prescribed drugs for themselves to someone else. The question about taking drugs, imo, is simply not relevant at all.


: But you said (none / 0) (#36)
by jbindc on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 10:37:18 AM EST

To ask them about prescribing drugs under another name or dispenising their own personal drugs to someone else. I'm saying you couldn't ask about that because it would run up against the Fifth Amendment.

While I think (none / 0) (#27)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:19:31 AM EST

The judge is waaaayyy overreaching here, jurors get asked questions like this all the time. For instance, it would be highly unlikely thst someone who had been raped would be allowed to sit on a jury in a rape case, or someone who had been abused as a child to sit on an abuse case jury. On the flip side. And many times, these questions aren't asked on a questionnaire, but in open court during voir dire - for everyone to hear and to be memorialized in the record.


Not to discount... (none / 0) (#28)
by kdog on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:32:40 AM EST

those very real privacy invasions you mentioned, but at least it isn't a crime to be a victime or rape or abuse...it is a crime to take certain drugs without a permission slip.

Tough issue...someone's freedom is at stake so effort must be made to keep prejudice out of the box, as impossible a task as that is...while at the same time not making jury duty service feel like you're very own trial, or worse...you're very own prison.


That's a fair point (none / 0) (#32)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:23:07 PM EST

But then how do you determine a potential bias someone may have for or against the use (and distribution) of this drug? I don't have the answer.


: I don't either... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by kdog on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:04:43 PM EST

I guess I lean towards one simple question to be asked of jurors..."Is there any reason why you can not be an impartial juror in this case?"...and hope they're being honest in their answer.
Besides, if the potential juror lies to that one, they will certainly lie when asked more intrusive questions.
There are fundamental flaws to our system of justice that we really can't do much about..chief among them the human element. It's why I'm so big on limiting the power of the state and always err'ing on the side of the accused.