New Jersey’s Supreme Court unanimously ordered a new trial Tuesday for a man facing murder charges, finding that racial discrimination infected the jury selection process after prosecutors ran a criminal background check on a prospective juror after the court denied the government's request to excuse that prospective juror, and led to his arrest (article available here).
In 2017, the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office singled out one prospective juror for a background check after their request to have him removed was denied. They found the prospective juror, a Black man identified only by initials in court papers, had a warrant and arrested him soon after.
“Based on all of the circumstances, we infer that F.G.’s removal from the jury panel may have stemmed from implicit or unconscious bias on the part of the State, which can violate a defendant’s right to a fair trial in the same way that purposeful discrimination can,” Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote in the decision.
Despite his contentions of impartiality, prosecutors "extensively" questioned F.G. about people he knew who had been accused of crimes or were victims of crimes.
For the first time, the New Jersey Supreme Court set ground rules for conducting background checks on jurors, and found that prosecutors in the case leading to Tuesday's opinion did not meet those standards.
Going forward, any party seeking to run a criminal background check on a prospective juror must first get permission from the trial court, and opposing counsel must be notified of the request, and the results shared with all sides. The potential juror should also have a chance to respond, the justices said.
The requests also should be made in good faith and include a reasonable basis that running a background check might reveal pertinent information unlikely to be uncovered through the ordinary voir dire process.
The case is State of New Jersey v. Andujar, case number 084167, in the New Jersey Supreme Court.