228 A.3d 236
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2020Background
- Defendant Edwin Andujar was convicted of first‑degree murder and related weapons offenses; he appealed raising multiple issues, but the Appellate Division addressed only the jury‑selection claim.
- During voir dire a prospective juror, "F.G." (a young Black man), disclosed that several friends/family had police contact and two cousins had been murdered; the trial judge found him fair and denied the State's for‑cause challenge.
- After the judge denied removal, the prosecutor (and only the prosecutor) ran a criminal record/warrant check on F.G., purportedly found an open municipal warrant and prior arrests, and arranged for his arrest once he was excused from the panel.
- Defense counsel objected at trial to the selective background check and the arrest, sought a remedy (additional peremptory challenge or other relief), and preserved the issue for appeal.
- The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the prosecutor's selective investigation and resulting removal of a seated juror without a full on‑the‑record inquiry implicated Batson/Gilmore concerns and that the trial court should have made a fuller record and considered available remedies; the matter was remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Andujar's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Did the prosecutor's selective criminal record check on a single Black juror and subsequent arrest violate Batson/Gilmore? | The check was race‑neutral and justified by F.G.'s voir dire answers; no prima facie Batson case. | Targeting a single minority juror for investigation created a disparate inquiry and could be a pretext to exclude minorities; violates Batson/Gilmore. | The court concluded the selective check and arrest raised serious Batson/Gilmore concerns and reversed—trial court should have made a fuller record and addressed the issue under Batson. |
| 2) Was the challenge waived by failure to litigate at trial? | State argued appellate review should be barred if not properly preserved. | Defense promptly objected when the check and arrest occurred and sought relief, preserving the issue. | Court held the issue was preserved and appealable because defense objected and asked for remedies at trial. |
| 3) Was the trial court's off‑the‑record handling and failure to question F.G. about the record check procedurally improper? | Court/process constraints left no alternative once warrant was discovered; arrest made juror unavailable. | The court should have required the prosecutor to put the record check results on the record, questioned F.G. out of the panel, and permitted him to explain. | Court held the procedures were inadequate: results and chamber discussions should have been placed on the record and the judge should have questioned F.G. before excusing him. |
| 4) Were remedies available and did the court abuse discretion in denying relief? | State argued arrest rendered juror unavailable so no remedy was necessary. | Defense argued remedies existed (new venire, extra peremptories, prosecutor forfeiture) and should have been granted. | Court held remedies were available and the trial court erred by granting no remedial relief; reversal and new trial required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits race‑based peremptory strikes; three‑step framework)
- State v. Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508 (New Jersey adoption and application of Batson framework)
- State v. Osorio, 199 N.J. 486 (clarifies prima facie showing and burdens in Batson/Gilmore analysis)
- Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228 (disparate questioning/investigation of jurors can demonstrate discriminatory intent)
- Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (discusses disparate impact vs intent under Batson)
- Foster v. Chatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737 (single juror exclusion for discriminatory purpose unconstitutional)
- In re State ex rel. Essex Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 427 N.J. Super. 1 (Law Div.) (counsel denied access to juror birthdates; cautions about abuse of juror information)
- State v. Andrews, 216 N.J. 271 (remedies for Batson violations; court options)
- State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463 (trial court credibility findings entitled to deference)
- State v. Thompson, 224 N.J. 324 (discussion of Batson step burden allocation)
- State v. Clark, 316 N.J. Super. 462 (factors to consider in assessing discriminatory intent)