46 A.3d 616
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2012Background
- Acting Essex County Prosecutor sought an order directing the jury manager to provide jurors' dates of birth to the State to run background checks.
- Public Defender and amici curiae oppose the request; ACLU-NJ and ACDL-NJ joined in opposition as to all or part of the relief sought.
- State argued birthdates would enable more efficient and accurate verification of juror qualifications and prevent unqualified jurors from serving.
- State proposed sharing background results with court and defense only if reports reveal false or incomplete voir dire disclosures.
- Judge noted New Jersey voir dire history limits pre-swearing questioning, placing responsibility with judges and limiting oath requirements.
- Court considered statutory rules and constitutional privacy concerns, concluding the requested dissemination would be inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the Judiciary disclose juror birthdates to the State for background checks? | State asserts authority under N.J.A.C. 13:59-4 and related statutes. | Opponents argue limited statutory authority and Rule-based disclosure; privacy and due process concerns. | Rejected; insufficient legal basis to disclose birthdates to the State. |
| Does juror birthdate disclosure violate privacy rights of prospective jurors? | State claims privacy intrusion is limited and necessary for fair process. | Privacy rights protect personal data; birthdates are sensitive and protected from government dissemination. | Yes, prospective jurors have a reasonable privacy expectation in birthdates; disclosure is not justified. |
| Is Assignment Judge authority to disseminate juror information to parties and the State properly constrained? | Rule 1:38-5(g) allows distribution; state interest in ensuring qualified jurors. | In re Supervision & Assignment of the Petit Jury Panels and constitutional provisions require caution; State’s interests not outweigh. | Distribution to the State is not appropriate; court rejects the application. |
| Does Rule 1:8-5 and related statutes permit disclosure of juror questionnaires to the State for verification purposes? | Prosecutor seeks to verify qualifications; rules foresee panel lists and potential disclosure. | Rules and constitutional framework do not authorize unilateral dissemination; due process concerns for defense. | No; disclosure to the State alone is not permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Manley, 54 N.J. 259 (N.J. 1969) (voir dire limited; judge-centric questioning; no oath in non-capital cases)
- Casey v. Male, 63 N.J. Super. 255 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1960) (amicus participation discretionary; standard for intervention)
- In re Supervision & Assignment of the Petit Jury Panels, 60 N.J. 554 (N.J. 1972) (constitutional framework for jury supervision)
- Keenan v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 106 N.J. Super. 312 (N.J. App. Div. 1969) (trial court interrogation and voir dire testing guidance)
- Taxpayers Association v. Weymouth Township, 80 N.J. 6 (N.J. 1976) (broad public interest in matters with general implications)