In the Matter of the Request to Release Certain Pretrial Detainees (085186)(Statewide)
244 A.3d 760
N.J.
2021

Background

  • The Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA) permits pretrial detention when no conditions reasonably assure against flight, danger, or obstruction; it includes time limits and a two-year maximum for detention in many cases.
  • COVID-19 prompted suspension of most in‑person criminal jury trials in New Jersey, substantially lengthening pretrial detentions (≈4,900 detained as of Jan. 2021).
  • The Office of the Public Defender and the ACLU moved for broad relief: categorical release of detainees held ≥6 months on second‑degree-or-lower charges (with State objection allowed under an enhanced burden), and mandatory new hearings for detainees held ≥6 months on first‑degree charges.
  • Movants argued prolonged pandemic-related detention raises due process concerns (risk that a regulatory detention regime has become punitive); State and prosecutors opposed categorical remedies and urged case‑by‑case review under the CJRA.
  • The Court declined categorical relief and judicial surgery or rulemaking to rewrite the statute, but held the CJRA’s reopening provision (N.J.S.A. 2A:162‑19(f)) provides an appropriate path: the pandemic is “new information,” and judges may reopen detention hearings in individual cases.
  • The Court set practical guidance: defendants detained ≥6 months who make a preliminary showing based on enumerated factors may seek expedited reopened hearings; defendants subject to the statutory presumption of detention (murder/life) are generally not eligible.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
1. Whether categorical release of detainees held ≥6 months (≤2nd‑degree) is required Movants: pandemic‑delays make prolonged detention unconstitutional; seek categorical release with State required to prove continued detention beyond reasonable doubt State: CJRA constitutional; due process challenges must be case‑specific; categorical relief would overbroadly alter statute Denied: no categorical relief; due‑process limits are case‑by‑case; judicial surgery/rulemaking unavailable to rewrite CJRA
2. Whether pandemic permits reopening detention hearings under N.J.S.A. 2A:162‑19(f) Movants: pandemic = changed circumstances warrant reopening hearings for those detained ≥6 months State: reopening should remain governed by statute and case‑specific standards; oppose wholesale relief Granted in part: pandemic constitutes new information under §19(f); defendants detained ≥6 months may seek reopened hearings if they show materiality
3. What threshold, factors, and procedures govern reopened hearings Movants asked for enhanced burdens (e.g., beyond reasonable doubt) and out‑of‑county judges/special masters State opposed changing burdens and transfers; urged courts to apply existing standards and discretion Court retained statutory burdens (no heightened proof); set threshold: detained ≥6 months + preliminary showing under enumerated factors; judges may resolve weak motions without hearings; no automatic transfer required
4. Eligibility of defendants presumptively detained (murder/life) for reopened hearings Movants did not seek relief for presumptively detained group State: seriousness of offenses weighs against reopening for this group Held: Generally ineligible—presumption of detention for murder/life makes material change unlikely; hearings unlikely to be granted

Key Cases Cited

  • United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (pretrial detention constitutional if regulatory, not punitive)
  • Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (test for whether detention is punitive)
  • In re Request to Modify Prison Sentences, 242 N.J. 357 (NJ Supreme Court: COVID‑19 is a change in circumstances for sentence‑modification purposes)
  • State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458 (judicial surgery doctrine)
  • United States v. Accetturo, 783 F.2d 382 (due‑process assessment of prolonged pretrial detention should be case‑specific and consider initial detention factors)
  • United States v. Orena, 986 F.2d 628 (no bright‑line limit; flexible, fact‑specific due‑process inquiry)
  • United States v. Gonzales Claudio, 806 F.2d 334 (long pretrial detention may violate due process in some cases)
  • United States v. El‑Hage, 213 F.3d 74 (length of detention not dispositive; contextual review)
  • Commonwealth v. Lougee, 147 N.E.3d 464 (consideration of detention length and pandemic‑related delay in reopening detention)
  • Winberry v. Salisbury, 5 N.J. 240 (limitations on court rulemaking power to alter substantive law)
Read the full case