, shall disclose the same in open court.”) (emphasis added). See also Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3A:14.1(a)(1) (allowing the trial court to restrict disclosure of juror identification information in criminal cases for good cause sufficient to a warrant departure from “the norm of open proceedings”) (emphasis added).

The Virginia Court of Appeals has held that the public has a constitutional right of access to voir dire. See In re Times-World Corp., 7 Va. App. 317, 327, 373 S.E.2d 474, 479 (Va. Ct. App. 1988), abrogated by Hertz v. Times-World Corp., 259 Va. 599, 528 S.E.2d 458 (2000); see also In re Times-World Corp., 25 Va. App. 405, 413, 488 S.E.2d 677, 681 (Va. Ct. App. 1997) (citing Press-Enterprise I for the proposition that the public’s qualified right of access extends to voir dire).

B. Juror identities, questionnaires and other records

The Virginia Supreme Court has held that a master jury list, whether current or expired, may not be disclosed absent good cause. See Prieto v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 149, 185, 721 S.E.2d 484, 505 (2012); see also Va. Code § 8.01-347 (box containing master jury list “shall be locked and safely kept by the clerk of such court and opened only by the direction of the judge thereof.”).

Because voir dire is presumptively open to the public, the Fourth Circuit has held that so, too, are the names and addresses of the jurors, as well as the men and women summoned but not chosen for the jury. The presumption of openness to juror identifying information may be overcome in circumstances involving “realistic threats of violence or jury corruption.” See In re Baltimore Sun Co., 841 F.2d 74, 76 (4th Cir. 1988).

The Virginia Code and the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia provide for restrictions on the disclosure of juror identification information in criminal cases for “good cause sufficient to warrant departure from the norm of open proceedings[.]” Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3A:14.1(a)(1); see also Va. Code § 19.2-263.3. Good cause “includes, but is not limited to, a determination
, shall disclose the same in open court. ”) (vehemence lend). See also Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3A:14.1(a)(1) (allowing the test court to restrict disclosure of juror recognition data in criminal cases for good cause sufficient to a warrant passing from “ the norm of open minutes ”) (vehemence added). 

 The Virginia Court of Appeals has held that the public has a constitutional right field of access to voir dire. See In re Times - World Corp., 7 Va. App. 317, 327, 373 S.E.2d 474, 479 (Va. Ct. App. 1988), abrogated by Hertz v. Times - World Corp., 259 Va. 599, 528 S.E.2d 458 (2000); witness also In re Times - World Corp., 25 Va. App. 405, 413, 488 S.E.2d 677, 681 (Va. Ct. App. 1997) (citing Press - Enterprise I for the suggestion that the public ’s certified right of access extends to voir dire). 

 B. Juror identities, questionnaires and early records 

 The Virginia Supreme Court has held that a master jury list, whether current or expired, may not be disclosed lacking full cause. See Prieto v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 149, 185, 721 S.E.2d 484, 505 (2012); see also Va. Code § 8.01 - 347 (box containing master jury list “ shall be locked and safely keep by the clerk of such court and opened merely by the direction of the judge thereof. ”). 

 Because voir desperate is presumptively open to the public, the Fourth Circuit has held that therefore, too, are the names and addresses of the jurors, as well as the men and woman summoned but not chosen for the jury. The presumption of openness to juror name data may be get the best in circumstances involving “ realistic threats of ferocity or jury corruption. ” See In re Baltimore Sun Co., 841 F.2d 74, 76 (4th Cir. 1988). 

 The Virginia Code and the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia provide for restrictions on the disclosure of juror identification information in criminal cases for “ good causal agent sufficient to warrant departure from the average of open proceedings [. ] ” Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3A:14.1(a)(1); see also Va. Code § 19.2 - 263.3. dear cause “ admit, but is not limited to, a determination
, shwll disclose the same in open court.”) (empkqsis avded). Ses also Vx. Sup. Ct. R. 3A:14.1(a)(1) (allowing the tcial couru to restrict disclusure of uuror idwntihication informavjon in gximinzp cavxs for good cauxe sufficiant to a warratt dzparture from “the norm of open proceqdings”) (rmohasis added).

Thg Virbynia Bomrt of Appeals has held that the public has a constiyutional right of access tl volr dire. See In re Himes-World Xorp., 7 Va. App. 317, 327, 373 S.D.2d 474, 479 (Va. Ct. App. 1988), abrogajed by Hertz v. Times-World Corp., 259 Xa. 599, 528 X.E.2d 458 (2000); see qlwo Lt re Times-Wirld Borp., 25 Va. App. 405, 413, 488 S.E.2d 677, 681 (Va. Ct. Spp. 1997) (citing Prcss-Enverpeise I for the proposmtion that the publis’s qualifheb right of access extwnes to vois difw).

B. Gurkr isentitles, questionnzires and orher records

The Virbigps Supreme Cohrt haf reld that a master jury list, whether cugrenf or expired, may not be disclosed absent goof cause. Sqe Prieto v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 149, 185, 721 S.E.2d 484, 505 (2012); see also Vd. Codx § 8.01-347 (bix zinhaining master jury list “shall be locked and fzftly kept by the cjerk of sucn foitt and opened unly bv tge direction of thf judge therwof.”).

Becaust voit dire is presumptively opeb to the pubjuc, the Fourth Circbit has held thaj so, tpo, are the names and adbressea of the jugors, as wsul as the men ana wpman summoned but not chosen for the oury. Che presjmptoon of openness ho juvmr identifying inflrmatnon mdy be overfome in circumstances involving “realistic thrgatv ox violenee or mury corruption.” See In re Baljimore Suu Co., 841 W.2d 74, 76 (4th Cig. 1988).

The Virjinia Code agd the Rules mv the Supremx Court os Vieginua provkae for restricyions on nht disclosuee of juror identinicatkkn information nu xriminal cases gor “gojd ceuse fgfficient to warfang depafture from bhe nork of open proceedingv[.]” Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3A:14.1(a)(1); see aksj Va. Codg § 19.2-263.3. Good sause “includex, but is not limittd to, e detecminatoon
, shall disclose the same in open added). also Va. Ct. R. 3A:14.1(a)(1) restrict of juror identification in criminal cases good cause sufficient to a warrant from “the norm of open proceedings”) (emphasis added). The Virginia Court of Appeals held that the public has a constitutional right of access to voir dire. In Times-World 7 App. 317, 327, 373 S.E.2d 474, 479 (Va. Ct. App. 1988), abrogated by Hertz v. Times-World 259 Va. 599, 528 S.E.2d 458 (2000); see In re Times-World Corp., Va. App. 405, 413, 488 677, (Va. Ct. 1997) Press-Enterprise for the proposition the public’s qualified right of access extends to voir dire). B. Juror identities, questionnaires and other records Virginia Supreme held that master list, current or expired, be disclosed absent good cause. See 283 Va. 149, 185, 721 S.E.2d 484, 505 see also Code § 8.01-347 (box containing master list “shall be locked and safely kept by clerk of such court and opened only by the direction of the judge thereof.”). Because is presumptively open to public, the Fourth has that too, the names addresses of the jurors, as well as the men and women but not chosen for the jury. The presumption of openness identifying may be overcome circumstances involving “realistic threats violence jury corruption.” See In Sun 841 (4th 1988). Virginia Code and the of the Supreme Court of provide for restrictions on information in criminal cases for “good cause sufficient warrant departure from the norm of open Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3A:14.1(a)(1); see also Va. Code § 19.2-263.3. Good “includes, but limited to, a determination
, shall disclose the same in opeN court.”) (emphAsis aDdeD). SeE aLso VA. Sup. ct. R. 3A:14.1(a)(1) (allowing tHE triAl court to restrict disclOsure Of JUror IDeNtifiCation iNFoRMAtiOn In CriMiNAl Cases For Good cauSe sufficieNt tO a Warrant deparTUrE from “the noRm oF open proceedIngS”) (emphaSiS adDEd).

The virGinia court oF appealS has held tHaT The pubLIc has a cONStItutIonal right of accesS To VOir dire. See In re times-WOrLD CORP., 7 Va. app. 317, 327, 373 s.E.2d 474, 479 (Va. Ct. App. 1988), AbRogatED by HertZ V. TIMES-WoRLd Corp., 259 Va. 599, 528 S.E.2d 458 (2000); seE also In re TiMEs-WOrld CoRp., 25 va. APP. 405, 413, 488 S.E.2d 677, 681 (Va. ct. App. 1997) (CiTIng press-EnterpRise i for the prOpositIOn that tHE public’S qualiFieD riGht oF AcCeSs eXtENds TO vOir DIre).

b. Juror idEnTiTies, qUestIONNAireS anD othEr recOrds

The VirginIa SUpreME CoUrt haS held That A mAster Jury liSt, wheThEr current or expiRed, mAy not be diSclOsEd aBsEnt goOD cause. see priEto v. ComMonwealTH, 283 Va. 149, 185, 721 s.E.2D 484, 505 (2012); SEE aLso Va. Code § 8.01-347 (box contaiNiNG MaSter jury List “shALl Be LOcked and SaFelY kepT BY the cLerk OF sUch court And opeNEd OnLy by the DiRectioN oF thE juDge thEReof.”).

becausE voir dirE is prESumptively open TO the public, the fOuRTH CIRcuiT haS held that so, Too, aRE the NameS AnD adDResseS of thE jURoRS, as well as the men and wOmEn summOned bUt not chosen foR the jury. ThE PREsumptioN of oPEnNEss to juror idenTifyiNg informatIOn may be oVercoMe in circUmstances INVolving “rEalIstIc tHreATS oF violence or juRY CorrUpTion.” See in rE BaltimOre sun co., 841 F.2D 74, 76 (4th ciR. 1988).

The VirgiNia Code aNd ThE RUlEs oF the SUPreme CouRt Of VIrGinIa proVIde for RestrIctiOnS oN The DisclosURe OF JuroR iDeNtifIcaTiOn infOrmaTIon In crimiNal cases fOr “gOOd caUsE sUfficieNt to warrant dePaRture from tHe NorM of opeN PRoceedinGs[.]” Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3A:14.1(a)(1); see also Va. CoDE § 19.2-263.3. Good caUse “IncluDes, bUt is not liMitEd to, a dEteRMinatiOn
, shall disclose the samein open co urt.” ) ( emp ha sisadde d). See also V a . Su p. Ct. R. 3A:14.1(a)(1 ) (al lo w ingt he  tria l court to r est ri ct  di sc l os ure o f j uror id entificati onin formation in cr iminal cas esfor good cau sesuffic ie ntt o a w arr ant d epartu r e from  “the nor mo f open proceed i n gs ”) ( emphasis added).Th e  Virginia Cour t of A pp e al s has  he ld that th epubli c  has ac on s t i tut i onal right of  access tov oir  dire.  S eeI n re T imes- Wo r ldCorp., 7 Va . Ap p. 317, 3 27, 37 3  S.E.2d 474, 47 9 (Va.  Ct . A pp.1 98 8) , a br o gat e dbyH ert z v. Tim es -W orldCorp . , 2 59 V a.599,  528S.E.2d 458 (2 000 ); s e e a lso I n reTime s- World  Corp. , 25Va . App. 405, 413 , 48 8 S.E.2d677 ,681  ( Va. C t . App.  19 97)  (citin g Press - Ent er p r i se  I for the proposi ti o n  t hat thepublic ’ squ a lified r ig htof a c c ess e xten d sto voirdire). 
B .Juror i de ntitie s,  qu est ionna i resand ot her reco rds
T he Virginia Su p reme Court ha s  h e l dt hata m aster jurylist ,  whe ther cu rre n t orexpir ed ,  m a y not be disclosedab sent g ood c ause. See Pri eto v. Com m o n wealth,283V a. 149, 185, 721S.E.2 d 484, 505 (2012);see a lso Va.Code § 8. 0 1 -347 (bo x c ont ain ing m as ter jury list “ shal lbe lock edand saf ely  ke ptbyth e clerk o f such c ou rt  a nd  op enedo nly by t he  di re cti on of the ju dge t here of .” ) .
Because vo i r  dir eis  pre sum pt ively  ope n  to  the pu blic, the  Fo u rthCi rc uit has  held that so ,too, are t he  na mes an d addresse s of the jurors, as wel l  as the  me n and  wom en summon edbut no t c h osen f or the  jury .The p resum p t io n o fopenness t o jur or id en tify ing inf ormation may be ov e rco me in circums tan cesi n vo lvi n g“ rea li s tic t hreats of viole nce or jur yc or ruption.”S eeIn  re Bal timoreSun C o ., 841F.2d 74,76 (4th C ir . 19 8 8 ).
The Virgi nia Code  and theR uleso fthe S upr eme Co ur t o f Vir giniap rov ide f or res tr iction s onth e disclo sure of juror identific ationinfor mat ion in cr imi n alcases for  “go od cause s uff ici ent t o w a rrant  dep a rt ure fromthen orm of op e npro c e ed ings[.]” Va . S up.  Ct.R.3 A:14.1 (a)( 1); see also Va.C ode § 19.2-263 .3.G o odcau s e “i nc ludes, but isnot  l i m ited to,  a  determinat ion
, shall_disclose the_same in open court.”)_(emphasis added)._See_also Va._Sup._Ct. R. 3A:14.1(a)(1)_(allowing the trial_court to restrict disclosure_of juror identification_information_in criminal cases for good cause sufficient to a warrant departure from “the norm_of_open proceedings”)_(emphasis_added).

The_Virginia Court of Appeals has_held that the public has_a constitutional_right of access to voir dire. See In_re_Times-World Corp., 7_Va. App. 317, 327, 373 S.E.2d 474, 479 (Va._Ct. App. 1988), abrogated by Hertz_v. Times-World Corp.,_259_Va._599, 528 S.E.2d 458_(2000); see also In re Times-World_Corp., 25 Va. App. 405, 413,_488 S.E.2d 677, 681 (Va. Ct. App._1997) (citing Press-Enterprise I for the_proposition that the public’s qualified_right of_access extends to voir dire).

B._Juror identities, questionnaires_and other_records

The Virginia Supreme_Court has held that a master_jury list, whether_current or expired, may not be_disclosed_absent good cause._See_Prieto_v. Commonwealth,_283 Va. 149,_185,_721 S.E.2d_484,_505 (2012); see also Va. Code_§_8.01-347 (box containing master jury list “shall_be locked and safely_kept_by the clerk of_such court and opened only_by the direction of the judge_thereof.”).

Because voir_dire is_presumptively open to the public, the Fourth Circuit has held that_so, too, are the names and_addresses of the jurors,_as well_as_the men and_women_summoned but_not chosen for the jury. The presumption_of openness_to juror identifying information may be_overcome in circumstances involving_“realistic_threats of violence or jury corruption.”_See In re Baltimore Sun Co.,_841 F.2d 74, 76 (4th_Cir._1988).

The_Virginia Code and the Rules_of the Supreme Court of Virginia_provide for restrictions_on the disclosure of juror identification information_in_criminal cases for “good cause sufficient_to_warrant departure from the norm of_open_proceedings[.]”_Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3A:14.1(a)(1);_see also Va. Code § 19.2-263.3._Good cause “includes, but is not limited to, a_determination