The Canadian and essentially North American criminal justice system has traditionally made the identities and addresses of jurors known to the judge, the prosecution, and the defense solely. That tradition began to erode with the unprecedented sua sponte trial court decision to use an anonymous jury in the case of United States v. Barnes and lead to similar precedent in Canada with the case of The Crown v. Diroguay, two highly publicized criminal trials of …showed first 75 words of 2163 total…

…showed last 75 words of 2163 total…law." An impartial jury is not only a criminal defendant's right but a hallmark of any civilized judicial system. In extraordinary cases, juror anonymity is necessary to ensure this goal. Rather than alerting a juror to a defendant's violent persona, anonymity merely dillutes existing fears and prevents outside forces from prejudicing either side. Preventing a defendant from using his reputation or resources to discourage conviction preserves, rather than subverts, the integrity of the judicial process.