In fairness, he is to be forgiven — as he is used to operating under the criminal law rubric — where if the law doesn’t explicitly require (or prohibit) a series of events, his clients would likely be acquitted.
And with all due deference to R West here, I do not think the arguments advanced will carry the day (though they are generally spot on with the ones you offered over the weekend, in comments).
Boiled down, he simply says (in a two page PDF) that First Amendment jurisprudence does not require the release of the names.
But that isn’t how the amendment works. It says unless a specific danger or harm is outlined, by competent evidence (which per force would require suggesting that Mr. Shkreli would be dangerous, in possession of the names)… the press is presumed to have the right to report on matters of public concern, in the criminal justice system, without restraint of any kind. “Congress shall make no law…” in the preamble to the amendment means what it says. And the same applies… to judges.
So Judge Matsumoto is likely to grant the access to the list of names. If nothing else, the world should know whether any jurors felt bullied by other jurors to acquit (on some charges) — and if so, by which ones.
Same way as to convicting — but I think that unlikely given the way the verdict was handed down.
I also wonder whether — when the jurors are named — Mr. Brafman may be a little worried that some miscreant Shkreli acolyte will harm one of them. But he cannot say so, by letter — and he cannot admit that many of the rest of these posts and comments here reflect that his followers may be a continuing danger to lawful, orderly liberty, in our society.
Should (God forbid) something happen — it will be relevant to sentencing of Mr. Shkreli — unless Brafman can distance this convict from all his prior postings in public.