State v. Eckel, 429 N.J. Super. 580

Assistant county prosecutor made informal, gratuitous comments to a grand jury after indictment vote but before return in open court.
Comments concerned quantum, quality, and significance of evidence presented.
Court sua sponte dismissed the indictment as a result of prosecutorial misconduct.
Prosecutor’s remarks were found to infringe on grand jury independence and created appearance of taint.
Rhodes framework applied to determine when indictment is “found” and whether pre-return comments tainted the decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether comments occurred before or after indictment return	Eckel: comments preceded return and tainted process	State: timing not material if after vote	Pre-return comments tainted; dismissal warranted
Whether comments infringed grand jury decision-making	Eckel: comments reflected guilt and evidence weight	State: allowed explanations of evidence	Comments crossed line; conduct required dismissal

State v. Hogan, 144 N.J. 216 (1996) (misleading or tainted grand jury presentation warrants scrutiny)
State v. Hart, 139 N.J. Super. 565 (1976) (prosecutor may not participate in deliberations or influence findings)
State v. Childs, 242 N.J. Super. 121 (1990) (prosecutor explanations must not imply guilt or influence jurors)
State v. Murphy, 110 N.J. 20 (1987) (extreme infringement warrants dismissal)
State v. Rhodes, 11 N.J. 515 (1953) (return of indictment is objective act protecting interests of State and defendant)