State v. Aakash A. Dalal (075325)
115 A.3d 1264
| N.J. | 2015Background
- Aakash Dalal faced two indictments in Bergen County: one for attacks on synagogues and related offenses, and a second for conspiracy to murder an assistant prosecutor, conspiracy to possess a firearm, and terroristic threats.
- While in custody, law enforcement seized handwritten papers from Dalal’s cell listing “ENEMIES,” including the Bergen County criminal presiding judge and the judge who denied his bail; the papers included phrases such as “DEAD COPS.”
- The State presented those papers (and informant statements) to a grand jury; the second indictment did not charge threats against the judges but the State signaled it might introduce the seized documents at trial.
- Dalal moved to recuse the Bergen County judiciary entirely, arguing the presence of two judges named as targets created an appearance of partiality; the trial court denied the motion as improper judge-shopping.
- The Appellate Division reversed and ordered reassignment outside the vicinage; the Supreme Court granted review, noted one named judge had been reassigned and the other retired, and remanded to the Bergen County assignment judge for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether threats discovered in defendant’s cell require recusal of the Bergen County judiciary | State: No convincing legal basis to disqualify entire vicinage; doing so risks encouraging forum shopping | Dalal: Listing two Bergen judges as murder targets creates an appearance of partiality warranting recusal of the vicinage | Court: Not all threats require recusal, but here a reasonable, fully informed observer could doubt impartiality; remand for assignment judge to consider transfer or bringing in outside judge |
| Whether evidence shows defendant threatened judges to manipulate proceedings | State: No evidence of manipulation; threats discovered in cell and not communicated to judges | Dalal: Intent to threaten judges suffices to raise appearance concerns regardless of manipulation evidence | Court: Because record lacks proof of manipulation, manipulation concern cuts against automatic denial; but absence of manipulation does not resolve appearance issue here |
| Standard for recusal when a judge is threatened | State: Standard is DeNike (reasonable, fully informed person) and cautions against forum shopping | Dalal: Appearance standard compels broad recusal when judges are targeted | Court: Apply DeNike; consider nature/context of threat, evidence of manipulation, whether threatened judge presides, whether threat will be introduced at trial, and vicinage relationships |
| Appropriate remedy and process | State: Assignment judge should not transfer without party input; victims should be heard | Dalal: Transfer or outside judge necessary to preserve appearance of fairness | Court: Remand to assignment judge to hear parties (and victims) and decide whether to (1) ask Chief Justice to assign judge from another vicinage or (2) transfer the case to another vicinage |
Key Cases Cited
- DeNike v. Cupo, 196 N.J. 502 (New Jersey 2008) (standard: whether a reasonable, fully informed person would doubt a judge’s impartiality)
- United States v. Greenspan, 26 F.3d 1001 (10th Cir. 1994) (threats to a judge can require recusal absent evidence the threat was a manipulation tactic)
- State v. McCabe, 201 N.J. 34 (New Jersey 2010) (recusal rules address both actual bias and appearance of impropriety)
- In re Basciano, 542 F.3d 950 (2d Cir. 2008) (recognizing possibility that threats against a judge may be used to change judges)
- United States v. Beale, 574 F.3d 512 (8th Cir. 2009) (finding clear expression of intent to manipulate the judicial system)