Open Records Decision No. 369
April 8, 1983

	Re:  Whether records on prior service of jurors in criminal cases maintained by 
Dallas County Attorney are available to public under the Open Records Act

Honorable Henry Wade
District Attorney
Dallas County Government Center
Dallas, Texas  75202

Dear Mr. Wade:

	You have requested our decision under the Open Records Act, article 6252-17a, 
V.T.C.S., as to the availability of certain records maintained about former jurors in 
criminal cases.

	You indicate that the Dallas County District Attorney's office maintains 
computerized listings, dating from about 1952, of all former jurors in criminal cases.  
The records include (1) the name and address of the juror; (2) the assistant district 
attorney assigned to the case; (3) the name of the defendant and the crime charged; (4) 
the verdict and sentence and (4) notations which reveal “subjective opinions and 
conclusions made by prosecutors regarding the relative desirability from the State's 
viewpoint of having the affected juror on another case.”  You state that you have no 
objection to releasing all of the requested information except the prosecutors' notations, 
and suggest that these notations are excepted from disclosure by section 3(a)(8) as:

records of law enforcement agencies that deal with the detection and 
investigation of crime and the internal records and notations of such 
law enforcement agencies which are maintained for internal use in 
matters relating to law enforcement.

	A criminal district attorney's office is a “law enforcement agency” for purposes of 
section 3(a)(8).  See Open Records Decision No. 340 (1982).  In Ex parte Pruitt, 551 
S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1977), the Texas Supreme Court said that information may be 
withheld by a law enforcement agency under section 3(a)(8) if its disclosure would 
“unduly interfere with law enforcement and crime prevention.”  Id., at 710.  In our 
opinion, disclosure of prosecutors' subjective comments about former jurors would tend 
to indicate the state's possible strategy in future prosecutions, and, in doing so, would 
compromise the state's effectiveness in prosecuting criminal matters.  As a result, we 
believe it may fairly be said that release of this information would “unduly interfere with 
law enforcement and crime prevention.”  We note that, in Linebarger v. State, 469 
S.W.2d 165 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that:

the State has no obligation to furnish counsel for accused with 
information he has in regard to prospective jurors.

Id., at 167.  See also Martin v. State, 577 S.W.2d 490, 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); 
Enriquez v. State, 429 S.W.2d 141, 145 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968).

	We conclude that notations which consist of prosecutors' subjective evaluations of 
former jurors are excepted from disclosure by section 3(a)(8) of the Open Records Act.

Very truly yours,

Jim Mattox
Attorney General of Texas

Tom Green
First Assistant Attorney General

David R. Richards
Executive Assistant Attorney General

Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General

Approved:
Opinion Committee

Susan L. Garrison, Chairman
Jon Bible
Rick Gilpin
Jim Moellinger
Nancy Sutton
Bruce Youngblood