While the processes surrounding it are murky...
en.wikipedia.org
While there are times where the defense gets access to this info (for the purposes of doing their own bias screening), there are cases where it's in the best interest to keep them anonymous.
When looking at the criteria, let's see if there's any potential cause for concern:
*****************************************************************************************
In some cases, the identity of the jury is not revealed to anyone; in other cases, the identity of the jury is revealed to the prosecution and defense, but not released to the public or media.
In most jurisdictions, several criteria are used to determine if an anonymous jury is appropriate. The defendant's involvement in organized crime, the
defendant's participation in a group with the capacity to harm jurors, the defendant's past attempts to interfere with the judicial process, the potential that the defendant will get a long jail sentence or substantial fines if convicted, and
extensive publicity that could expose jurors to intimidation or harassment are situations in which an innominate jury may be appropriate.
*****************************************************************************************
The ones I bolded are the ones where I see justification for keeping the jury anonymous.
Sometimes bias screening is necessary (for instance, if you're a highly polarized figure, you wouldn't want people lying and claiming to be neutral during the selection interview, and then find out later they have been posting incessantly on Facebook about how they'd love to take you down)
In this particular instance, there is value in both keeping jurors anonymous and in bias screening so it's a sticky wicket.
Admittedly, I'm not a legal expert (so I'm not sure if this is even possible), but perhaps there's some mechanism by which a 3rd party (that both the prosecution and defense can agree on) can be appointed to task of "bias screening" under a strict NDA (that would carry heavy penalties if violated) so that Trump's defense team could be sure that they didn't get a blatant anti-Trump juror, but without giving them access to the name and information of the people so that it doesn't show up on Tucker Carlson's show the next night and they don't get harassed at their place of work.
