STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. EDWIN ANDUJAR (15-05-1096, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0930-17T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
February 24, 2020
v.
APPELLATE DIVISION
EDWIN ANDUJAR,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________
Argued January 15, 2020 – Decided February 24, 2020
Before Judges Koblitz, Whipple, and Mawla.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 15-05-
1096.
John Douard, Assistant Deputy Public Defender,
argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora,
Public Defender, attorney; John Douard, of counsel
and on the briefs).
Frank J. Ducoat and Emily M. M. Pirro, Special
Deputy Attorney Generals/Acting Assistant
Prosecutors, argued the cause for respondent
(Theodore N. Stephens II, Acting Essex County
Prosecutor, attorney; Frank J. Ducoat and Emily M.
M. Pirro, of counsel and on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
WHIPPLE, J.A.D.
Defendant Edwin Andujar appeals from an August 17, 2017 judgment of
conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of first-degree purposeful or
knowing murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) and (2); fourth-degree unlawful
possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d); and third-degree possession of a
weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d). Because the State
performed a criminal background check on the one Black juror it
unsuccessfully sought to exclude for cause, and the trial court then allowed an
unverified municipal warrant to result in the juror's exclusion, we now reverse.
Defendant raises the following issues on appeal.
POINT I
DURING JURY SELECTION, THE PROSECUTOR
PERFORMED A RECORD AND WARRANT
CHECK ON ONLY ONE PROSPECTIVE JUROR, A
YOUNG [BLACK] MAN WHO ACKNOWLEDGED
DURING VOIR DIRE THAT HE HAD FRIENDS
AND FAMILY WHO HAD CONTACTS WITH THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, THEREBY
VIOLATING THE SPIRIT OF BATSON/GILMORE1
BY DENYING ANDUJAR HIS RIGHT TO A JURY
OF HIS PEERS AND DENYING THE JUROR HIS
RIGHT TO SERVE ON THE JURY. MOREOVER,
THE PROCEDURE PURSUED BY THE
PROSECUTOR, IF PERMITTED, IS LIKELY TO
1
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); State v. Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508
(1986) (adopting Batson framework).
A-0930-17T1
2
REDUCE JUROR PARTICIPATION FOR FEAR OF
REPRISALS BY THE STATE.
POINT II
IMPROPER COMMENTS MADE BY THE
PROSECUTOR IN SUMMATION EXCEEDED THE
BOUNDS OF PROPRIETY BY INFLAMING AND
MISLEADING THE JURY, THEREBY DEPRIVING
THE DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHTS TO DUE
PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL.
POINT III
THE JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS
RIGHTS TO PRESENT A DEFENSE, TO DUE
PROCESS, AND TO A FAIR TRIAL BY
IMPROPERLY PRECLUDING DEFENSE
COUNSEL FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE
THAT [DECEDENT]'S DEATH WAS A RESULT OF
HIS PREEXISTING MEDICAL CONDITIONS, AND
DELAY IN TRANSPORTING HIM TO THE
HOSPITAL; AND FURTHER, BY FAILING TO
PROVIDE THE DEFENDANT'S VERSION OF
CAUSATION IN THE FINAL JURY CHARGE. U.S.
CONST. AMENDS. V, XIV; N.J. CONST. ART.1
PARS.1,10.
A. After Permitting Evidence That
[Decedent]'s Preexisting Medical
Conditions Combined With The Delay In
Transporting Him To The Hospital For
Surgery Were Contributing Factors In
Causing His Death, The Judge Barred
Defense Counsel From Arguing The
Causation Issue In Her Summation.
B. The Judge's Jury Charge On Causation
Only Provided The Jury With The State's
Theory Of Causation, And Explicitly Told
A-0930-17T1
3
The Jury Not To Consider [Decedent]'s
Medical Condition As An Intervening
Cause Of His Death.
POINT IV
THE [FORTY-FIVE] YEAR AGGREGATE PRISON
TERM, WITH A [THIRTY-EIGHT] YEAR PERIOD
OF PAROLE INELIGIBILITY WAS MANIFESTLY
EXCESSIVE AND UNDULY PUNITIVE.
Having reviewed all defendant's arguments and the record presented, we
determined points two, three and four lack sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion, Rule 2:11-3(e)(2). Therefore, we concern
ourselves here only with the jury selection process and whether defendant was
denied his right to a fairly selected jury.
During jury selection, prospective juror F.G. 2 was called to seat number
thirteen. F.G. told the court that there was no reason he could not be fair and
impartial in this case. He stated that he answered affirmatively to voir dire
questions 29, 30, and 31. 3 When asked about question 29, he explained that he
2
We use the prospective juror's initials to protect his identity.
3
The relevant portion of the jury questionnaire read:
29. Have you or any family member, close friend, or
acquaintance ever worked for an agency such as
a police department, prosecutor's office, the
FBI, DEA, a sheriff's department, jail, prison,
the Innocence Project, ACLU, private
A-0930-17T1
4
had one cousin who worked as a Newark police officer and another cousin who
worked as an Irvington police officer. He said he did not discuss their work
with them and that nothing about his relationship with them would interfere
with his ability to be fair and impartial. When asked who was accused of a
crime in regard to question 30, he responded: "A host of people." He also
stated "I know a host of people. I got two cousins too,"4 when asked who the
victim was in regard to question 31.
The court called F.G. to sidebar to discuss his responses in more detail.
The judge asked F.G. how many people were accused, and F.G. answered: "I
know a lot of people." When pressed for numbers, F.G. estimated that five or
six close friends were accused and three were victims. The court asked:
"[W]ith regard to the way anybody was a victim[,] . . . was accused[, or] was
treated by the criminal justice system[, does] that provide any reason for you
investigator's office or criminal defense
attorney, in N[ew] J[ersey] or elsewhere?
30. Have you, any family member or close friend
ever been accused of committing an offense
other than a minor motor vehicle offense?
31. Have you, any family member or close friend
ever been the victim of a crime, whether it was
reported to law enforcement or not?
4
We do not correct the statements made by F.G.
A-0930-17T1
5
to say you might not be able to be a fair and impartial juror in this case?" F.G.
responded: "No. No." F.G. addressed each of the close friends one at a time.
Regarding the first accused friend, F.G. said the friend had been selling
drugs in Newark; he remarked: "I don't know about the case. I just—they get
locked up after that it ain't got nothing to do with it." F.G. did not know
whether the friend pled guilty or had been tried, but he said he believed the
friend had been treated fairly by the justice system. As to his relationship with
this friend, F.G. said: "I went to high school with him, told him to come by
my mother's, hey, what is up, keep it moving." He said he had not seen the
friend since he was arrested.
F.G. stated that a second friend was also arrested for selling a controlled
dangerous substance (CDS). He did not know what happened with him, but he
assumed it was the same as with his first friend. He said he had no impression
concerning whether the second friend was treated fairly by the judicial system:
"Honestly, I don't have any problem as long as I stay out of it." He also did
not know whether the second friend was tried or pled guilty. F.G. stated that
he believed the third friend was arrested for selling drugs at the same time as
the second friend and that the third friend was home, so he assumed he had
been treated fairly. When asked if these friends had been prosecuted by the
A-0930-17T1
6
Essex County Prosecutor's Office, F.G. explained that he did not know because
he did not "get into their business" and did not go to their court cases.
F.G. recalled that a fourth friend was charged with gun possession about
seven years earlier. He had no impression of whether the friend had been
treated fairly and they never talked about his case. He said "I don't know if he
pleaded guilty. All I know he got trigger locked and he went away." He
explained "trigger locked" meant that the friend had three gun charges against
him, and "after the third one he went to the feds." When asked how he knew
about "trigger locked," he said "I grew up in a neighborhood where it just ain't
good. You learn a lot of things from the streets."
F.G. could not think of anyone else who had been charged with a crime.
Regarding the victims, he stated that he had two cousins who were murdered.
One was stabbed in Newark fifteen years earlier, and the person arrested and
tried for the murder was acquitted. He stated he was upset the individual was
not convicted but he mostly stayed away from the whole situation. The other
cousin was shot in Kentucky thirteen years earlier and the perpetrator was
convicted and sent to prison. F.G. also recalled that a friend of his was robbed
two years earlier and no one was apprehended for the crime. When asked what
he thought about that, he stated "[a] lot of my friends live that lifestyle, so I
think it just come with the territory."
A-0930-17T1
7
When the court asked if F.G. thought the fact that he knew people who
were accused of crimes and who were the victims of crimes would make him a
better juror than someone without those life experiences, F.G. said: "No" and
that he would view the evidence "the same as anybody else, background would
affect them." When asked for an explanation, he stated:
What I was saying was, like, everybody in here, jurors
and everybody, got a background. And, you know,
this is different, that is why you getting judged by
what [fourteen], [thirteen], and everybody got
different perspectives about everything.
So, you know, what I'm saying, mine's might be
a little different than the next person. The next
person's might be a little different according to where
they grew up and how they grew up.
With regard to his background specifically and the "lifestyle" he
referenced, F.G. explained "a lot of friends I grew up in neighborhood, they
hustle, they selling drugs; that is what I meant by the lifestyle."
F.G. went over his answers to the remainder of the jury questionnaire.
He stated that he graduated from high school and attended some college
classes. He worked for a municipal Department of Public Works, and in his
spare time he coached youth football. He said he believed that the criminal
justice system is fair because you are judged by your peers.
After F.G. was sent back to his seat, the prosecutor requested that the
court remove him for cause because
A-0930-17T1
8
[h]e has an awful lot of background. He says
that he wants no parts of any of this, but he has a host,
using his own language, of friends and family that
have been accused of crimes, same as being victims.
But when asked to give a number, he just kind
of guessed at the number, [j]udge, he gave us a
number that would satisfy us, the State submits. And I
just felt that there [are] more people that he knows are
accused and even more that could be victims. I think
on a case like this he has had two cousins that were
murdered, one was involved in a stabbing and a
domestic dispute. It sort of mirrors the facts of this
case. It is a risk to take a chance on somebody that
might have a, you know, problem with his cousin
getting murdered in a domestic dispute when we have
the same set of facts in this case almost mirroring it.
You know, he has‒he uses all of the lingo about,
you know, the criminal justice system, talked about
people getting picked up, talked about people getting
trigger locked, talked about CDS, talks about the
lifestyle. I just think that given his background and
his extensive background in the criminal justice
system with friends and family and knowing what the
testimony in this case is going to be is problematic.
And I think the juror should be excused for cause
based on his answers to those questions.
In addition, a second assistant prosecutor added the following reasons:
What I think is very concerning his close friends
hustle, engaged in criminal activity. That is how his
friends make a living. That draws into question
whether he respects the criminal justice system,
whether he respects what his role is here, and whether
he is going to uphold all of the principles that he was
instructed by your [h]onor.
A-0930-17T1
9
Additionally, I don't think that he was as
forthcoming about his knowledge of the system. I
know towards the end after probing by counsel and by
your [h]onor, he did admit he knew a term such as
"trigger locking" and the way things worked. But in
the beginning he seemed to just not be forthcoming,
no, I don't really know, I know they are locked up, I
don't hear anything. I don't think he was being fully
honest.
Defense counsel opposed the application, arguing that "the State's
position is untenable in the sense that it means that no Black man in Newark
would be able to sit on this jury." The court stated he understood defense
counsel's point and denied the request, stating:
I don't think there has been any reason at all that this
juror should be excused for cause.
....
Everything he said and the way he said it leaves
no doubt in my mind that he's not expressed or does
not have any bias towards the State nor the defense for
anything. What he said, how he said it. I think he
would make a fair and impartial juror. I don't have
any reason to doubt it, so that application is denied.
After the juror was seated, the assistant prosecutor conducted a criminal
record check on F.G. The next day, the judge revealed on the record that the
prosecutor came to see him in chambers the previous afternoon to talk about
F.G.:
[The prosecutor] said basically that the man had been
arrested before. He had warrants out for him. They
A-0930-17T1
10
were going to lock him up. And then they gave me
some papers, I guess, corroborating what they were
saying, which was incident reports and some printouts.
....
One warrant out of Newark Municipal Court. My
question is simple. What application of relief does
either side have because the court only responds to
application[s] of relief.
The prosecutor renewed her application to have F.G. removed for cause.
Defense counsel initially did not oppose the State's application but requested
that F.G. be arrested out of the presence of the jury pool. The court and the
prosecutor agreed that the arrest would be executed elsewhere in the
courthouse.
Later, the court asked the sheriff's officer to look outside to see if F.G.
was there. The officer confirmed F.G.'s presence and the prosecutor made a
phone call to determine the best way to isolate him from the other prospective
jurors. At that point, defense counsel expressed concern that arresting F.G.
would taint the entire jury and asserted: "I think coming to court for jury
service no one expects they are going to be looked up to see if they have
warrants." The court suggested a plan whereby all prospective jurors would be
seated and then F.G. would be excused with directions to report to the first
floor. "And when he walks out of this courtroom, it will not be to the first
floor he returns. It will be into the grasp of your law enforcement off icer."
A-0930-17T1
11
The prosecutor agreed to this plan and added that the State was not in the
habit of looking at random jurors' criminal histories. She asserted the check
was conducted because of F.G.'s acknowledgement that he associated with
people who "hustle drugs," and the court's refusal to excuse him for cause.
Her research revealed that F.G. had an open municipal warrant as well as two
arrests in the past "both for domestic violence where it seems he has an alleged
habit of beating up women." The prosecutor also rejected defense counsel's
assertion that her motion to remove F.G. for cause was based on racial bias. In
making these statements, the prosecutor referred to a meeting in chambers, that
is not transcribed or otherwise contained in the record, in which defense
counsel accused her of moving against F.G. because of racial bias.
An argument ensued between the attorneys, which the court cut short
stating:
I'm stopping this. . . . Nobody asked this court
for any relief. The only thing that I know is the
prosecutor, based on new information, made an
application, applied to excuse the juror for cause.
Defense counsel did not disagree or consent[] to it. So
they were excused for cause. That is the only [horse]
the court had in the race.
The court took a short break, after which defense counsel said that she
had the opportunity to speak with her office and she withdrew her consent to
the dismissal of F.G. for cause. She requested as a remedy for the State's
A-0930-17T1
12
action that defendant be awarded an additional peremptory challenge. The
court reserved on the application and directed counsel to try to reach a
compromise on the matter.
The court then called in the jury pool, and informed F.G. that he was
excused and that he should report to the first floor. F.G. left, after wishing that
the court "[h]ave a nice day." He was arrested immediately thereafter once
officers checked to make sure the hallway was clear of potential jurors.
Counsel were unable to reach an agreement on the remedy for F.G.'s
dismissal for cause and continued to argue as to whether the State's action was
legally supportable. The prosecutor contended that it did not matter because
F.G. was under arrest and unavailable for jury duty. She also claimed that
F.G. had been dishonest in his answers to the court's questions, to which
defense counsel replied that there was no evidence that F.G. knew that he had
accusations against him. The court found that there was no reason to grant the
relief defense counsel was seeking and the court formally denied defendant's
application for an extra peremptory challenge.
Additional voir dire ensued, after which all counsels stated that they
were satisfied with the jury as seated. At that point, the State had one
peremptory challenge remaining, and defendant had two.
A-0930-17T1
13
On appeal, defendant argues the implicit bias in the prosecutor's
procedure renders the procedure constitutionally suspect because it violates the
underlying constitutional principles that protect both defendant and potential
jurors from discriminatory jury selection processes. Defendant argues that the
prosecutor's selective use of a background check, on a Black juror, as a means
of making the juror unavailable, impermissibly allowed the State to circumvent
a Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) determination. We agree.
I
We are confronted with the following questions: (1) whether the
prosecutor improperly utilized a criminal record check to selectively
investigate a single minority member of the jury; and (2) whether the Batson
framework is applicable to situations where a prosecutor has the prospective
juror arrested, based on that selective criminal record check, after a court
decides the juror should not be dismissed for cause and a Batson question has
been raised. Before reaching the underlying merits of this claim, we must first
address the State's contention that defendant waived the right to challenge the
jury composition on appeal.
There is no question that "[t]he jurisdiction of appellate courts rightly is
bounded by the proofs and objections critically explored on the record before
the trial court by the parties themselves." State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 19
A-0930-17T1
14
(2009). The trial court must be alerted to the "basic problem" and have the
opportunity to consciously rule upon it before the issue may be raised for
appellate review. Ibid. (citations and internal quotation omitted); see also
State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409, 419 (2015) (noting our appellate courts will
decline to consider issues not properly presented to trial court when
opportunity for such presentation is available). The New Jersey Supreme
Court observed:
[I]f late-blooming issues were allowed to be raised for
the first time on appeal, this would be an incentive for
game-playing by counsel, for acquiescing through
silence when risky rulings are made, and, when they
can no longer be corrected at the trial level, unveiling
them as new weapons on appeal.
[Robinson, 200 N.J. at 19 (quoting Frank M. Coffin,
On Appeal: Courts, Lawyering, and Judging 84-85
(W.W. Norton & Co. 1994)).]
The law as stated in Robinson, and Witt, does not bar defendant from
challenging F.G.'s dismissal. This issue was clearly raised by defense counsel
at trial. Virtually the first action taken by defense counsel, when she heard the
State's motion to dismiss F.G., was to object to the prosecutor's use of a record
check to exclude an urban Black man from the jury. Thus, the charge of racial
profiling in the selective performance of record checks was plainly in front of
the trial court. Additionally, the court heard argument on issues surrounding
F.G. and had ample opportunity to rule upon them. The court made no formal
A-0930-17T1
15
ruling, however, because it recognized what defendant raises in his response to
the State's argument; once F.G. was arrested by the State, the court had no
choice but to excuse him for cause, since he was rendered unavailable by his
arrest. Likewise, once F.G. was arrested, there was no point in defense
counsel continuing to argue that he should be seated on the jury.
The situation here is analogous to what occurs in a Batson challenge.
The procedure that is followed when a defendant claims bias in the
prosecution's exercise of peremptory challenges requires that the defendant
raise a timely objection during or at the end of jury selection. State v.
Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508, 535 (1986). The defendant is not deprived of an appeal
if his objection is overruled and the matter proceeds to trial before a jury to
which he ultimately assents. Similarly, here, defense counsel made known her
objection to the prosecutor's performance of a criminal record check on F.G.,
her lack of consent to the for-cause dismissal of F.G., and her desire for some
sort of remedy. For these reasons, it would be fundamentally unfair to deprive
defendant of the right to appeal the actions of the prosecutor, and the rulings of
the court in declining to grant defendant any remedy.
II
We now turn to the question of whether the prosecutor improperly
utilized the criminal record check in selectively investigating a single minority
A-0930-17T1
16
member of the jury. The only case in New Jersey that has considered the
propriety of a prosecutor conducting criminal background checks on
prospective jurors is In re State ex rel. Essex Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 427 N.J.
Super. 1 (Law Div. 2012). There, Assignment Judge Patricia Costello denied
the State's request that the "court order the jury manager to turn over the dates
of birth of certain persons in the petit jury pool to the State to facilitate
running criminal background checks on those potential jurors." Id. at 4, 26.
In analyzing the State's request, Judge Costello reviewed the evolution
of voir dire questioning of potential jurors in New Jersey. Id. at 6-13. She
noted that New Jersey laws concerning questioning of potential jurors
originated from the English common law tradition in which examination was
only allowed after a litigant posed a challenge for cause, supported by extrinsic
evidence. Id. at 7. Through a progression of Supreme Court decisions,
legislation, court rule changes, and administrative directives, the modern
practice developed in which the responsibility for voir dire questioning was
placed in the hands of the trial judge, who could question jurors "only
according to limited prescribed guidelines and almost never under oath." Id. at
6-13.
The judge observed that "the action proposed here by the State would
represent a next step in a progression from a system in which jurors are
A-0930-17T1
17
implicitly trusted to one in which their disinterest and qualifications to sit on a
case are verified by pre-trial investigation." Id. at 13-14. The judge cautioned
that such a next step would represent an "acute departure" from the practice
currently established where the Judiciary bears the responsibility of inquiring
into the qualification of potential jurors. Id. at 14.
The State contended that confirming whether jurors are qualified to
serve falls under the enforcement power granted to a county prosecutor by
N.J.S.A. 2A:158-5. Id. at 15. Further, it argued that the Administrative Code,
N.J.A.C. 13:59-2.1, allows criminal justice agencies to access criminal history
record information. Ibid. Judge Costello recognized the authority granted to
the prosecutor by these provisions but noted that "[n]owhere . . . does it state
that the court is obligated to provide other criminal justice agencies with
information they require in order to facilitate criminal background checks."
Ibid.
Judge Costello specifically noted that "[t]he issue of whether N.J.A.C.
13:59-1 to -2.4 actually authorizes the State to conduct criminal background
checks on potential jurors is not before the court in this application." Id. at 19
n.15. Rather, her holding addressed only the court's obligation to turn over
potential jurors' birthdates to the prosecution. In finding that such information
was privileged, the judge relied on the jurors' reasonable expectation of
A-0930-17T1
18
privacy in the information they provided in their juror qualification forms. Id.
at 18-19. She concluded:
If the Judiciary is to disseminate the personal
information it collects from administering the county's
jury-related functions, it must first and foremost be
convinced that there is a genuine need that can in
some way be addressed by that dissemination. Here,
although the State's brief demonstrates that
unqualified individuals' service as jurors can be a
legitimate public problem, it does not demonstrate that
it has been so in New Jersey, or that this problem is
sufficiently serious as to merit the solution it
proposes. Its proposed relief would not merely serve
the neutral concerns of ensuring the efficiency and
validity of court proceedings, but would instead in
large part serve to benefit the State's own interests at
the expense of criminal defendants.
[Id. at 20.]
Under Rule 1:8-5, the clerk of the court must provide any requesting
party a list of the general panel of petit jurors at least ten days prior to the date
of trial. Id. at 22-23. Also provided under Rule 1:8-5 is each juror's
municipality, but not his or her street address. Id. at 23 n.17. Judge Costello
ruled the assignment judge lacked both statutory and constitutional authority to
disseminate any other identifying information contained in prospective jurors'
questionnaires. Id. at 24.
In dicta, she commented:
[A]ll of the opponents of the State's motion note the
very real possibility of abuse should the State be given
A-0930-17T1
19
the information requested in its motion without
sufficient oversight. The ACDL-NJ[5] argues that, if
the motion were to be granted, it would be entirely in
the State's discretion to decide which jurors to
research and for what reasons. This raises the specter
of concerns addressed in Batson . . . and . . . Gilmore
. . . i.e. issues of fairness in jury composition. These
concerns are legitimate, and the State offered no
substantive proposals to alleviate them.
[Id. at 25.]
Like in Essex County, the question of whether New Jersey laws
authorize the State generally to conduct criminal background checks on
potential jurors is not before us. The New Jersey Administrative Code
addresses when prosecutors can run criminal record checks. N.J.A.C. 13:59-
2.1(a) provides:
Criminal justice agencies, for purposes of the
administration of criminal justice, may obtain from the
SBI[6] or otherwise access information collected by
criminal justice agencies concerning persons and
stored in the central repository of the New Jersey State
Police SBI, the National Crime Information Center . . .
or other states' computerized repositories containing
criminal history record information.
[(Emphasis added).]
N.J.A.C. 13:59-2.4(b), provides:
5
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey.
6
N.J.A.C. 13:59-1.1 defines "SBI" as "the State Bureau of Identification
created by N.J.S.A. 53:1-12 as a bureau within the Division of State Police."
A-0930-17T1
20
The [SBI] shall prominently display the following on
any record disseminated for criminal justice purposes.
Use of this record is governed by Federal
and state statutes and regulations. Unless
fingerprints accompanied your inquiry, the
[SBI] cannot guarantee this record relates
to the person who is the subject of your
request. Use of this record shall be limited
solely to the authorized criminal justice
purpose for which it was given and it shall
not be further disseminated for any other
purpose. . . .
A person is presumed innocent of any
charges or arrests for which there are no
final dispositions indicated on the record.
This record is certified as a true copy of
the criminal history record information on
file for the assigned SBI number.
[(Emphasis added).]
We question whether performing a criminal record check for the purpose
of disqualifying a juror at trial supports "the administration of justice."
Additionally, the prosecutor performed the check on F.G. based on his name,
which the State claims was "sufficiently unique." It offered no proof of that
claim. Without a fingerprint, social security number, birthdate, or even a street
address, there was no way to be sure the records the State obtained pertained to
F.G., who had reported to the courtroom for jury duty. The regulation itself
warns that without fingerprints the SBI cannot guarantee that the record relates
to the subject of the request.
A-0930-17T1
21
The municipal warrant that the State uncovered is not part of the record
on appeal. Nor is there any documentation to support the prosecutor's
assertion that F.G. "beat women." We emphasize New Jersey does not bar
people from juries because they have been arrested, nor do we bar people who
have municipal warrants or convictions for traffic violations, juvenile offenses
or other non-indictable offenses. New Jersey requires that jurors "shall not
have been convicted of any indictable offense under the laws of this [s]tate,
another state, or the United States." N.J.S.A. 2B:20-1(e).
It is unknown if there were domestic violence accusations against F.G.,
and if so whether they arose from police incident reports, proceedings in the
family court, or criminal charges. Further, the nature of the municipal warrant
is unknown. If it was the result of unpaid traffic violations, then F.G. may not
have been intentionally lying when he said he had never been accused of an
offense other than a minor motor vehicle offense. 7
7
According to the Report of the Supreme Court Working Group on the
Municipal Courts dated July 8, 2019, the Supreme Court Committee was
charged with conducting a reform-minded review of Municipal Court
practices, particularly those that can have a detrimental effect on individuals
with lesser means. Report of the Supreme Court Working Group on the
Municipal Courts 1 (July 8, 2019). One of the initiatives realized was the
development of a multi-pronged approach to ensure that bench warrants are
issued only when they may be useful and necessary. Id. at 4. Consistent with
that end, in January 2019, the Chief Justice signed an order on behalf of the
Supreme Court dismissing over three quarters of a million minor Municipal
A-0930-17T1
22
Although we do not reach the question of whether a criminal record
check is authorized during jury voir dire, a more complete record should have
been made before the court granted the prosecutor's request to dismiss F.G. for
cause. F.G. was a seated juror under the court's control, and therefore, the
State should not have undertaken such measures that would render a seated
juror unavailable without leave of court. The results of the criminal
background check should have been read into the record. All arguments on the
matter should have been transcribed rather than conducted off the record in
chambers. Most importantly, because it is the judge's role to preside over the
trial and promote respect for the process, the judge should have questioned
F.G.—out of the presence of other prospective jurors—about the results of the
record check. F.G. would thus have had the opportunity to confirm whether he
was the actual subject of the record check and whether he was aware that a
municipal warrant had been issued against him.
III
Court matters that were at least fifteen years old due to questions of fairness,
the use of public resources and the ability of the State to prosecute them. New
Jersey Courts, Supreme Court Dismisses Old Municipal Court Warrants in
Minor Matters (Jan. 17, 2019),
https://njcourts.gov/pressrel/2019/pr011719a.pdf. We do not know if the
municipal warrant in this matter would have fallen into that category.
A-0930-17T1
23
Recognizing a more complete record should have been made, we now
turn to the facts of the instant case to determine whether the prosecutor's
selective investigation, on a single minority member of the jury, and the
consequences which stemmed therefrom are permissible under a
Batson/Gilmore analysis.
Defendant asserts that the portions of F.G.'s voir dire that the State calls
suspicious represent experiences that many young, urban minorities share.
Defendant argues the prosecutor's suspicion that a record check would turn up
grounds for excluding F.G. from the jury was the result of the implicit bias
inherent in many aspects of the criminal justice system. For that reason, and in
light of the law established by Batson, 476 U.S. at 84, Gilmore, 103 N.J. at
523, and State v. Osorio, 199 N.J. 486, 492-93 (2009), defendant urges the
court to reverse his conviction and remand the matter for a new trial.
The State argues the prosecutor's conduct was not based on bias and was
supported by F.G.'s answers to voir dire questions. It maintains that under a
Batson/Gilmore analysis, "defendant could not have shown even a prima facie
case of discrimination in the prosecutor's checking of prospective jurors'
backgrounds".
The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that the
Constitution forbids striking even a single juror for a discriminatory purpose.
A-0930-17T1
24
See Foster v. Chatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737 (2016). Indeed, the Court has made
clear that racial discrimination in the selection of a jury violates a defendant's
right to equal protection of the law, unconstitutionally excludes an individual
from jury service, and harms the entire community by undermining public
confidence in the fairness of our judicial system. Batson, 476 U.S. at 86-87.
"Discrimination within the judicial system is most pernicious because it is 'a
stimulant to that race prejudice which is an impediment to securing to [ Black
citizens] that equal justice which the law aims to secure to all others.'" Id. at
87-88 (quoting Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 308 (1880)).
In Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-98, the Court recognized that the Equal
Protection Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits the use of
peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on account of their race and provided
a three-step framework to determine when the challenges are improperly used.
First, the opponent of the peremptory challenge must "make a prima facie
showing that [the] challenge has been exercised on the basis of race." State v.
Thompson, 224 N.J. 324, 339 (2016) (discussing the Batson framework).
"Once this burden has been met, the prosecutor 'must offer a race-neutral basis
for striking the juror in question.'" Ibid. (citation omitted). Lastly, the trial
judge is tasked with determining whether the opponent proved intentional
discrimination. Ibid.
A-0930-17T1
25
Utilizing the Batson framework, the Court in Hernandez v. New York,
500 U.S. 352, 359-60 (1991), instructed that when addressing the question of
whether a peremptory challenge violates the Equal Protection Clause, courts
"must keep in mind the fundamental principle that 'official action will not be
held unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially disproportionate
impact. . . . Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to
show a violation. . . .'" In that case, the defendant objected to the State's use of
its peremptory challenges to exclude Latino potential jurors. Id. at 355-56.
The State asserted its basis for striking the jurors in question was based on its
uncertainty that the bi-lingual jurors would be able to listen and follow the
interpreter. Id. at 356. The Court found that disparate impact is not
conclusive in the preliminary race-neutrality step of Batson, as an argument
relating to the impact of a classification does not alone show its purpose. Id. at
361-63.
Instead, the Court noted disparate impact is germane to the trial court's
consideration of whether purposeful discrimination existed. Id. at 363. The
Court added "'[a]n invidious discriminatory purpose may often be inferred
from the totality of the relevant facts, including the fact, if it is true, that the
[classification] bears more heavily on one race than another.'" Ibid. (alteration
in original) (citation omitted). Stated differently, the Court instructed that a
A-0930-17T1
26
trial court may consider the fact that a prosecutor's peremptory challenge
results in the disproportionate exclusion of members of a certain race in
determining whether the State's reason constitutes a pretext for racial
discrimination. Id. at 363-64.
Recently, in Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228, 2251 (2019), the
Court emphasized the importance of assessing all the relevant facts and
circumstances when determining whether a peremptory strike was motivated in
substantial part by discriminatory intent. In that case, a Black male defendant
was tried six separate times for the murder of four employees of a Mississippi
store, three of whom were White. Id. at 2234, 2236. There, the Court assessed
the relevant history of the first four trials and concluded the history of the case
strongly supported that the State's use of peremptory strikes, in the sixth trial,
was motived in substantial part by discriminatory intent. Id. at 2245-46. The
Court noted:
Stretching across [defendant]'s first four trials, the
State employed its peremptory strikes to remove as
many [B]lack prospective jurors as possible. The
State appeared to proceed as if Batson had never been
decided. The State's relentless, determined effort to
rid the jury of [B]lack individuals strongly suggests
that the State wanted to try [defendant] before a jury
with as few [B]lack jurors as possible, and ideally
before an all-[W]hite jury.
[Id. at 2246.]
A-0930-17T1
27
The Court stated that four critical facts, taken together, warranted reversal: (1)
the State utilized its peremptory challenges, in the six trials combined, to strike
forty-one of the forty-two Black prospective jurors; (2) in the sixth trial the
State used its peremptory strikes on five of the six Black prospective jurors;
(3) "at the sixth trial, in an apparent effort to find pretextual reasons to strike
[B]lack prospective jurors, the State engaged in dramatically disparate
questioning of [B]lack and [W]hite prospective jurors;" and (4) "the State then
struck at least one [B]lack prospective juror . . . who was similarly situated to
[W]hite prospective jurors. . . ." Id. at 2235.
Although the Court declined to decide whether any of those four facts
alone would require reversal, id. at 2235, it stated that disparate questioning,
along with other evidence, may inform the trial court's evaluation as to
whether discrimination occurred, id. at 2248. The Court noted:
[T]his Court's cases explain that disparate questioning
and investigation of prospective jurors on the basis of
race can arm a prosecutor with seemingly race-neutral
reasons to strike the prospective jurors of a particular
race. . . . [A] prosecutor can try to find some
pretextual reason–any reason–that the prosecutor can
later articulate to justify what is in reality a racially
motivated strike. And by . . . not asking [W]hite
prospective jurors those same questions, the
prosecutor can try to distort the record so as to thereby
avoid being accused of treating [B]lack and [W]hite
jurors differently. Disparity in questioning and
investigation can produce a record that says little
about [W]hite prospective jurors and is therefore
A-0930-17T1
28
resistant to characteristic-by-characteristic
comparisons of struck [B]lack prospective jurors and
seated [W]hite jurors. . . . A court confronting that
kind of pattern cannot ignore it. The lopsidedness of
the prosecutor's questioning and inquiry can itself be
evidence of the prosecutor's objective as much as it is
of the actual qualifications of the [B]lack and [W]hite
prospective jurors who are struck or seated. . . .
[Id. at 2247-48.]
After Batson, our Supreme Court, in Gilmore, 103 N.J. at 524,
"determined that the provisions of the New Jersey Constitution, Article I,
Paragraphs five, nine, and ten, likewise prohibited a prosecutor from
exercising peremptory challenges on the basis of religious principles, race,
color, ancestry, national origin, or sex." Thompson, 224 N.J. at 340. There,
the Court explained the main point of drawing a jury from a representative
cross-section of the community is "to achieve an overall impartiality by
allowing the interaction of the diverse beliefs and values the jurors bring from
their group experiences. . . ." Gilmore, 103 N.J. at 525 (quoting People v.
Wheeler, 583 P.2d 748, 761 (Cal. 1978)). The three-step Batson/Gilmore
methodology was refined slightly in Osorio, 199 N.J. at 492-93, where the
Court explained the requirements of each stage of the process.
For the first step, the Court clarified that the burden of establishing a
prima facie case is not intended to be onerous and will be satisfied if the
defendant produces sufficient evidence to draw an inference that
A-0930-17T1
29
discrimination has occurred. Id. at 501-02. Once a prima facie case is
established, the second step shifts the burden to the prosecution to articulate a
clear and reasonably specific explanation justifying its action. Id. at 504. The
Osorio court cautioned that in deciding whether the prosecutor has
successfully rebutted the inference, "the trial court must be sensitive to the
possibility that 'hunches,' 'gut reactions,' and 'seat of the pants instincts' may be
colloquial euphemisms for the very prejudice that constitutes impermissible
presumed group bias or invidious discrimination." Id. at 505 (quoting
Gilmore, 103 N.J. at 539).
The third step requires the trial court to judge the defendant's prima facie
case against the prosecution's rebuttal to determine whether the defendant has
carried the ultimate burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the prosecution's actions were exercised on grounds of presumed group
bias. Id. at 506. The Osorio Court cited approvingly State v. Clark, 316 N.J.
Super. 462, 473-74 (App. Div. 1998), as setting forth the factors the trial court
should consider when engaging in such an analysis. 199 N.J. at 506-07. These
factors include whether the prosecution has applied the reasons proffered for
its actions evenhandedly to all prospective jurors, the overall pattern of the
prosecution's actions, and the composition of the jury ultimately selected to try
the case. Ibid.
A-0930-17T1
30
Here, it is important to note the trial judge, having listened to the
arguments of two assistant prosecutors, rejected their application, finding that
there was no reason at all to excuse F.G. for cause. He based his decision not
only on what F.G. said but also on the way he said it. Such a credibility
determination lies well within the considerable discretion afforded the cou rt in
such matters. See State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 473 (1999).
Despite the trial court's finding, the prosecutor elected to conduct a
criminal record check on F.G. and stated, in support of her second motion for a
for-cause dismissal, her reasons for performing the check. The prosecutor
asserted:
[T]he State is not in the habit of doing what counsel
just suggested where we are looking at a random
juror's [criminal record]. [F.G.'s] background and his
acknowledgment that he hangs out with people that
are in a lifestyle and hustling drugs and getting
arrested, the dozens of criminal elements that he
produced here at sidebar raised the concern for the
State. Where I asked for him to be excused for cause,
he was not.
The prosecutor also informed the court that the record check revealed
that F.G. had an outstanding municipal warrant, and that the State was going to
have him arrested. Defense counsel argued that because F.G. was selectively
targeted for a background check, constitutional concerns such as a person's
right to sit on a jury were implicated. Nevertheless, F.G. was arrested,
A-0930-17T1
31
therefore making him unavailable, and the defense was awarded no remedy.
The trial court should have engaged in a Batson/Gilmore analysis.
We acknowledge that many of the considerations used to determine
whether a defendant satisfied the standard for a prima facie Batson/Gilmore
challenge are uniquely geared to the peremptory challenge process and do not
translate well to the performance of criminal background checks. For
example, both Osorio and Gilmore listed as an important consideration
whether the prosecutor "struck most or all of the members of the identified
group from the venire." Osorio, 199 N.J. at 503 (quoting Gilmore 103 N.J. at
536). Here, the challenged action was the prosecutor's performance of only
one background check, the subject of which was a member of the identified
group. Most of the Osorio factors concern common traits of the stricken jurors
and patterns of the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges. Ibid. Such
group characteristics may not be discerned from a single, selective
performance of a record check.
Nevertheless, we reject the State's argument that defendant could not
have made a colorable argument for even a prima facie case of discrimination.
As the Supreme Court of the United States instructed in Flowers, disparate
investigation of prospective jurors based on race, along with other evidence,
may inform the trial court's evaluation as to whether discrimination occurred.
A-0930-17T1
32
F.G. was a member of a protected group, and no member of a non-protected
group was subjected to a record check. It is not difficult to surmise that
running criminal background checks only on minority jurors could result in a
majority jury.
Additionally, as noted in Hernandez, defendant's contention that portions
of F.G.'s voir dire which the State called suspicious represent experiences that
are more common to minorities than non-minorities, if true, is also germane to
the trial court's determination as to whether discriminatory intent exists, as
discriminatory purpose may often be inferred where classifications bear more
heavily on one race than another. Moreover, the prosecutor's proffered
explanation for performing the record check was very much like the sort of
speculation against which Osorio cautioned. The prosecutor presented no
characteristic personal to F.G. that caused concern, but instead argued
essentially that because he grew up and lived in a neighborhood where he was
exposed to criminal behavior, he must have done something wrong himself or
must lack respect for the criminal justice system. This is not a new argument;
Black jurors have historically faced the attribution they will show leniency
toward defendants and are indifferent to criminality. See Thomas Ward
Frampton, The Jim Crow Jury, 71 Vanderbilt Law Review, 1593, 1603 (2018).
A-0930-17T1
33
Such reasoning may have arisen from the sort of prejudice that constitutes
impermissible presumed group bias.
In the end, we cannot determine with certainty whether the prosecutor
applied her reasons evenhandedly to all prospective jurors, because we do not
know: whether any other venire members responded affirmatively to questions
about the involvement of friends or family members with the criminal justice
system; if any other venire members grew up or lived in the same area of
Newark as F.G.; or the racial composition of the jury that convicted defendant.
The State's argument that even if the record check was performed
improperly, there was no relief available to rectify the matter ignores the
remedies available to a trial court to address Batson/Gilmore violations. The
court could have dismissed the empaneled jury members and begun jury
selection anew; it could have ordered the prosecutor to forfeit her remaining
peremptory challenges; or it could have granted additional peremptory
challenges to the defense. State v. Andrews, 216 N.J. 271, 293 (2013). The
court should have allowed F.G. to explain the alleged municipal warrant, and
if satisfied by his responses, the judge could have refused to grant a dismissal
for cause even in the face of the juror's potential arrest. We do not presume
that arrest on a municipal warrant would have made F.G. unavailable for trial.
A-0930-17T1
34
In order to secure a defendant's right to a jury as guaranteed by the
United States and New Jersey constitutions, we compel citizens by summons
to come to the courthouse to be considered as potential jurors. For most, this
is a disruption of their work and family lives. We ask them to disclose
personal, often uncomfortable information. The compulsion to appear should
not include the threat of arrest if we seek to convincingly assure the citizenry
that jury service is an honor and a duty. Record checks run because of
dissatisfaction with a judge's ruling, as was done here, undermine the
framework within which the trial proceeds and alters the court's exclusive
province in administration of the jury venire. Because the court made no
findings of fact concerning the prosecution's selective use of a criminal record
check and granted no relief to the defense whatsoever, defendant's conviction
must be reversed, his sentence vacated, and the matter remanded for a new
trial.
Reversed. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-0930-17T1
35