When Judge Jackie Glass admonished prospective jurors in the current O. J. Simpson trial not to expect to win a book deal from their jury service, I applauded her. I feel that profiting from jury service is an ethical failing. Then I realized that voir dire in the trial was being conducted in front of TV cameras. Outrageous! How can a judge boldly abjure citizens against exercising their right to freedom of speech and then turn around and require them to abandon all privacy rights, especially in such a high-profile case?

Let's face it: There's a very good reason that trials must be held in public. Without public access, the government would be able to do whatever it wanted to. The Star Chamber is illegal in America. But jurors must be free to speak about what happened in court and in the deliberation room after a trial if they feel that something wasn't right. That's why it would be improper to prohibit jurors from writing or speaking about the O. J. Simpson trial, and it is appropriate for a judge to caution jurors from serving only because they want to be able to write about the trial.

On the other hand, if the judge really expects jurors to be completely selfless, she ought to permit them to maintain their personal privacy by conducting voir dire in front of the Las Vegas public, but not in front of the cameras.