PROVIDENCE — Earlier this month, after jurors returned guilty verdicts against two former Roger Williams Medical Center executives, Rhode Island’s top federal judge, Ernest C. Torres, did two things that are drawing sharp criticism from First Amendment groups and praise from privacy advocates.

Torres urged jurors to avoid discussing the case, warning that their comments could be “misquoted” or “misconstrued” and saying jurors would “very likely create a problem” and might become “embroiled in a controversy.”

Also, Torres refused to release the full list of juror names to the media, although U.S. District Court in Providence has made jury lists available in recent high-profile cases such as the two civil trials stemming from police Sgt. Cornel Young Jr.’s death.

Torres instead asked jurors if they’d be willing to speak to the media, and provided The Journal with a list of only the three jurors who agreed to talk. After hearing the judge’s advice, however, only one of those jurors spoke to a Journal reporter — provided the newspaper not print the juror’s name.

In hindsight, Torres said he might have made a mistake; he now thinks he should not have released any of the jurors’ names. While reporters can still learn the identity of jurors during jury empanelment, Torres said he considers the list of juror names to be part of administrative records off limits to the public.

In the past, after a verdict was in, the court sometimes placed juror attendance lists in the public case file (but not online) when there was a request and a judge directed the court clerk to do so, Clerk of Court David A. DiMarzio said. But, he said, with the advent of online access to criminal case records, the Judicial Conference, which sets federal court policy, has said documents identifying jurors should not be in the public case file.

“We try to protect the privacy of jurors to the extent we can do so, consistent with our obligation to conduct an open process here,” Torres said in an interview. “It’s a very difficult balance.”

Lucy A. Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a nonprofit organization in Arlington, Va., said Torres’ advice to jurors and the Judicial Conference’s policies are part of a growing trend toward secrecy in the courts.

While there is nothing illegal about what Torres told jurors, since he didn’t order them not to speak, Dalglish said, “It is condescending and offensive. It is unfortunate he feels the need to be so paternalistic. If jurors don’t want to speak to the media, they have a really powerful tool at their disposal: The word ‘no.’ It works very well.”

Judges across the country are becoming more protective of jurors, Dalglish said. “It’s a way to control the trial. They don’t like to see jurors quoted or writing books or appearing on Good Morning America. They don’t like these trials being covered, period.” But, she said, “We decided several hundred years ago we were going to conduct public trials, and it seems to work pretty well.”

Dalglish, who is familiar with Torres from conferences and court transcripts, said, “The media seems to drive Judge Torres up a wall. It’s unfortunate that Judge Torres really seems to believe the media is the enemy of justice.”

Also, she said, “It’s unfortunate a federal district judge doesn’t understand the role the media plays in the justice system and the benefit to the public when jurors are able to freely speak to the media.”

Privacy advocates greeted Torres’ actions more warmly.

Robert Ellis Smith, a Providence lawyer and publisher of the Privacy Journal, a monthly newsletter with national circulation, said judges are justified in being concerned that jurors could “compromise the integrity of the judicial process” by talking about the case after the verdict.

“A judge has a reasonable concern if jurors get into the tabloids and sell books, or if jurors are misleading and carry on about what happened in the jury room,” he said. In the future, he said, people might not want to serve on juries if they see jurors quoted and assume that they have no choice but to talk about their decisions afterward.

Also, Smith said, seeing jurors writing books and appearing on television might lead some people to try to get on juries for the wrong reasons. “Some want celebrity, not so much in Rhode Island, but in Hollywood,” he said.

Smith said he thought it was proper for Torres to ask which jurors wanted to speak to the media and to then release only their names. “He in essence got the consent of those jurors,” he said.

Smith said he always wonders why jurors speak to the media after cases are completed. “I don’t think it’s in their interest at all,” he said. But Smith said he always reads what jurors have to say about a case. “I must say my curiosity level is high when jurors are quoted,” he said.

Smith said privacy and security are legitimate arguments for not releasing jurors’ the names and addresses. “Jurors are involved in very controversial matters, and to have their addresses publicly known could put them at risk,” he said. That danger is greatest in criminal trials, he said. “Prisoners spend most of their time obsessing about the judge that put them away. If they knew who the jurors were, they might do the same with jurors.”

Prof. Jane E. Kirtley, director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law at the University of Minnesota, said it might be understandable to have anonymous juries in rare instances, such as a “classic mob trial” where juror safety is in jeopardy.

But most cases aren’t like that, Kirtley said. The Roger Williams Medical Center case involved charges that hospital officials put a state senator on the payroll to do their bidding at the State House. “If you threaten a juror, you are breaking the law. Instead of closing off information, deal with those who commit illegal acts,” she said. “If we make our decisions about making government information available based on the idea it might be misused, then nothing would be publicly available.”

Kirtley criticized the new Judicial Conference policy that keeps jury lists out of public case files. She said putting criminal case files online seemed to promise greater access to federal court records. “In fact, it has had the perverse result of encouraging secrecy,” she said. “The strong presumption of openness is being undermined in the name of privacy.”

The United States has a long tradition of public access to court proceedings and documents, with roots in English common law, Kirtley said. She noted the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in 1980 that the right of the public and press to attend criminal trials is guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia opinion traced the history of public trials back to before the Norman Conquest, saying, “From this unbroken, uncontradicted history, supported by reasons as valid today as in centuries past, we are bound to conclude that a presumption of openness inheres in the very nature of a criminal trial under our system of justice.”

Kirtley said there is great value in jurors sharing their reflections on a case. “Judges say, ‘The verdict speaks for itself,’ but often a verdict is very hard to understand if you haven’t been following the case every day,” she said. “It may even seem contrary to reason.”

Ronald K.L. Collins, a scholar at the First Amendment Center, a nonprofit organization in Arlington, Va., said Torres’ strongly worded advice is bound to have a “chilling effect” on jurors. “What the judge is asking them to do is gag themselves, and this runs contrary to the whole idea of open justice,” he said. “The more justice operates in the dark, the greater the possibility for abuse — by the prosecutor, the defense or the judge.”

Torres, 65, who will step down as chief judge Dec. 1 and assume senior status with scaled-back responsibilities, said he has for years advised jurors not to speak about cases after the verdict is rendered. He said Senior U.S. District Judge Ronald R. Lagueux follows the same practice, and other judges might, as well.

Torres, a federal judge for 19 years, said he started offering that advice to jurors “a long time ago” because of “a couple of experiences where jurors got themselves involved in controversies.” He could not recall the precise details. But he said that in one case a juror told a third party, who was not a member of the media, that another juror knew a relative of a defendant, and the defendant’s lawyer raised the question with the court.

Also, Torres pointed out that in federal courts in this region, lawyers are prohibited from talking to jurors after cases are over. And he said another reason he offers that advice to jurors is “the notion of finality of the verdict.” He said, “Jury verdicts should not be lightly impeached.”

Torres said he understands people might want to know why a jury ruled one way or the other. But, he said he is concerned about “intruding into the deliberative process.” And he said that if jurors begin talking about what other jurors said during deliberations, people might become wary of what they say in the jury room and how they say it. “It puts you on a slippery slope,” he said.

Last year, a federal jury decided Providence was not liable for the violating of Sergeant Young’s constitutional rights by the two officers who shot and killed him. Afterward, the jury forewoman, a Catholic nun, and another juror talked to The Journal about how they arrived at the verdict.

Contacted last week, Sister Virginia Maitland said talking to The Journal allowed her to clear up misinterpretations. “In this case, one [lawyer] who was standing on the courthouse steps said the jury exonerated the Police Department and found it had adequate training,” she said. “But that’s one point we did not agree with. Many of us believed they did need additional training.”

Sister Maitland said, “I don’t think we should talk about what any particular person said, but the path that we followed to get to the end can, at times, be worth explaining so it is not misinterpreted.”

Torres said he had no problem with Sister Maitland explaining that jury’s decision to The Journal. But, he said, “You don’t always have a responsible person asking the questions, and you may not have a juror authorized to speak for others or naming names of jurors.”

Torres said jurors sometimes speak to reporters — or to others — even after he advises them not to. For example, he said some jurors spoke to the media after convicting former Providence Mayor Vincent A. Cianci Jr. of racketeering conspiracy, and he noted that one juror ended up speaking to The Journal about the Roger Williams Medical Center case.

In another high-profile case, a federal jury on Jan. 25 convicted Richard Hatch of evading taxes on the $1 million he won on the Survivor reality-television show. Afterward, Torres told jurors, “I no longer have any right to tell you not to talk to anyone, but my advice to you would be not to do it.”

Torres told the jurors, “I have no doubt that you may be approached by who knows who to ask you questions about the case. In the past jurors who have chosen to talk about the case after their service is completed, generally, in my experience, have regretted it because in many cases they end up embroiled in a controversy of some sort based on something they say.”

Torres told them, “If you do choose to talk about the case, then under no circumstances should you discuss what happened in the jury room, what other jurors said. That, then, would become my business.”

On Oct. 13, after the former Roger Williams Medical Center executives were convicted, Torres again told jurors he couldn’t stop them from talking, saying, “That’s none of my business.”

But, Torres said, “My advice to you is that it’s not a good idea, and there are a number of reasons why I say that.” For example, he said, “You may be misquoted by the person to whom you’re speaking. They may not accurately have understood what you said. And particularly if they then talk to someone else who talks to someone else, what you said could be easily misconstrued.”

Also, Torres told jurors, “There are people who may be very interested in criticizing or attempting to overturn your verdict and will be ready, willing and able to focus on anything that you said that might be misconstrued or might be viewed as inconsistent with what some other jurors said.”

When asked again last week for the full list of the jurors in that case, Torres said, “I’m certainly not going to tell the clerk to dig out of administrative records the names and addresses of those jurors.” And DiMarzio, the court clerk, said, “As keeper of the records, I don’t release information not part of the public record unless I have clear authority. I’m uncomfortable releasing it without an order from a judge.”

Torres said the court is no longer placing jury lists in public case files, reflecting “an increased concern for juror privacy coming from the Judicial Conference.” He said, “Juries are very concerned, particularly in criminal cases, about their privacy. They don’t feel comfortable with having their names bandied around.”

Torres rejected the idea that refusing to provide the media with jury lists after verdicts would make trials more secretive. He noted that juries are impaneled in public and reporters may attend those sessions. “We are not trying to conceal who jurors are,” he said. “It’s not that anyone is trying to suppress the information.”

Dick Carelli, a spokesman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, said the Judicial Conference in 2004 instituted new policies when it began permitting the public to access criminal case files online. The policy said, among other things, that “documents containing identifying information about jurors or potential jurors” should not be placed in the public case file.

Carelli said that doesn’t necessarily mean that jury lists are off limits if the media requests them after a verdict. He said district courts should have a jury selection plan that includes the court’s policy about what jury information will be made public upon request. “Courts have been told there is a presumption of access to that information,” he said. “But the bottom line is it’s up to each District Court to articulate its policy in the jury selection plan.”

In states such as Massachusetts, the federal courts allow access to juror names, unless “the interests of justice” require secrecy. In states such as Connecticut, the federal courts don’t release juror names without court permission.

In 1990, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears appeals from the District of Rhode Island, directed a federal judge in Massachusetts to give juror names and addresses to Boston Globe reporters, marking the first time a federal appeals court had weighed in on the issue of post-trial access to jury lists. Judge Levin H. Campbell wrote the decision on behalf of a three-judge panel that included Judge Stephen G. Breyer, then the 1st Circuit’s chief judge and now a U.S. Supreme Court justice.

“Where — as here — the trial judge points to no special reasons for confidentiality other than the personal preferences of the jurors and the judge’s distaste for exposing them to press interviews, the public’s long-term interest in maintaining an open judicial process must prevail in the balance,” Campbell wrote. “In a democracy, criminal trials should not, as a rule, be decided by anonymous persons.”

While the 1st Circuit decision hinged on the jury selection plan for the District of Massachusetts, the jury selection plan for the District of Rhode Island says nothing about the release of juror names.

Torres said the court needs to have a consistent policy, and he indicated the jury selection plan could be amended soon, in part to address that issue. When asked if revisions would state that jury lists are not accessible to the media after a verdict, he said, “That’s one possibility. We’ll address the question. We haven’t debated over it.”