121 A.3d 878
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2015Background
- Defendants Rashon Brown and Malik Q. Smith were tried jointly and convicted of carjacking and related offenses after a bench trial culminating in jury verdicts and lengthy custodial sentences. Appeals followed.
- During the second day of deliberations, Juror 4 told fellow jurors she had seen “two dark Black fellas” near her home that morning and suspected, because the defendants were Black, that the sighting might be connected to the case or pose a threat to her safety.
- Jurors 5 and 12 heard Juror 4 and advised her to report the incident to a sheriff’s officer; the officer alerted the judge, who questioned Juror 4, Jurors 3, 5, and 12 in chambers separately.
- Juror 4 and the other jurors each assured the judge they could remain impartial and decide the case based solely on the evidence; the judge declined defense requests to remove Juror 4 (and Juror 5) or declare a mistrial.
- The court of appeals held the trial judge abused his discretion by allowing Juror 4 to remain despite her demonstrable racial bias and by conducting an inadequate inquiry of the jurors who heard her; the convictions were reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a deliberating juror expressing a race-based inference from an unrelated event must be removed | State: Juror said she could remain impartial; no substantial external taint; removal unnecessary | Defendants: Juror 4 revealed latent racial bias linking race to criminality, requiring removal or mistrial | Court: Juror 4’s race-based inference demonstrated disqualifying bias; removal required and conviction vacated |
| Adequacy of the trial judge’s inquiry of other jurors who heard the biased comment | State: Other jurors said the remark would not affect deliberations; limited inquiry sufficient | Defendants: Judge’s questioning was perfunctory and failed to probe for shared or subconscious bias | Court: Voir dire of Jurors 3, 5, 12 was inadequate; judge abused discretion by not conducting a thorough, probing inquiry |
| Whether a mistrial (rather than substitution) was required where racial bias surfaced during deliberations | State: Substitution or continued deliberation acceptable because jurors professed impartiality | Defendants: Mistrial or removal + broad inquiry necessary given the gravity of racial stereotyping | Court: Because of the nature and seriousness of the racial stereotyping and the inadequate inquiry, reversal and retrial were required (mistrial remedial relief appropriate) |
| Judge’s own comments about juror prejudice and impact on fairness | State: Judge’s comments reflected common juror concerns and did not indicate acceptance of bias | Defendants: Judge’s remarks trivialized racial bias and signaled tolerance, compounding prejudice | Court: Judge’s statements were inappropriate and evidence he failed to repudiate the bias; contributed to reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Loftin, 191 N.J. 172 (supreme court) (trial before an impartial jury is a fundamental right)
- State v. R.D., 169 N.J. 551 (supreme court) (extraneous influence inquiry; capacity to influence is the test)
- State v. Hightower, 146 N.J. 239 (supreme court) (removal/substitution and mistrial principles when jurors receive extraneous information)
- State v. Fortin, 178 N.J. 540 (supreme court) (trial is poisoned if jurors cannot review evidence dispassionately)
- State v. Jenkins, 182 N.J. 112 (supreme court) (‘‘inability to continue’’ standard for juror substitution should be narrowly applied)
- Panko v. Flintkote Co., 7 N.J. 55 (supreme court) (test whether extraneous matter had capacity to influence jury verdict)