State v. Edwin Andujar (084167) (Essex County & Statewide), A-6-20

Background

Defendant Edwin Andujar was convicted of first‑degree murder; jury selection included extended voir dire of a prospective juror, F.G., a Black man from Newark.
At sidebar F.G. described having friends and relatives who had been arrested or victimized and used street/legal terms; the trial judge found him fair and impartial and denied the State’s for‑cause challenge.
After the denial, prosecutors unilaterally ran a criminal‑history check on F.G. (a database only available to the State), discovered prior arrests and a municipal warrant, and arranged for his arrest and removal from the panel; none of the records disqualified him from service.
Defense counsel voiced concerns about the State’s selective check and asked only for an extra peremptory challenge; the trial court denied that request. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded for a new trial.
The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the State’s unilateral, selective background check—undertaken after the court denied removal for cause—permitted an inference of discriminatory (implicit) bias, violated defendant’s right to an impartial jury, and requires reversal and a new trial.
The Court announced supervisory rules for future juror criminal‑history checks: a party must obtain court permission based on a reasonable, individualized, good‑faith basis; results must be shared with the court and both parties; the juror must be given an opportunity to respond; Batson/Gilmore processes still apply and implicit bias is cognizable under state law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a party unilaterally run a criminal‑history check on a prospective juror during voir dire?	State: Regulations and criminal‑justice purpose permit checks; prosecutors may run checks when they reasonably suspect impartiality.	Andujar: Prosecutors lack unilateral authority; selective checks chill service and disproportionately affect minorities.	Party may not run unilateral checks; must obtain court permission on a reasonable, individualized, good‑faith basis; results shared and juror allowed to respond.
Did the State’s selective check and removal of F.G. violate defendants’ Batson/Gilmore rights?	State: Challenge to F.G. was race‑neutral; check revealed arrests/warrant justifying removal; no prima facie discrimination.	Andujar: Selective investigation evaded Batson/Gilmore, harming equal protection and jury composition.	The record permits an inference of discrimination (slight burden); the State’s actions—selective check and arranged arrest—evaded Batson/Gilmore and reflected implicit bias; conviction reversed.
Does implicit (unconscious) bias fall within Gilmore/Batson analysis?	State: Focus on purposeful discrimination under Batson/Gilmore; implicit bias not emphasized.	Andujar & amici: Implicit bias can produce the same harm as purposeful discrimination and should be considered.	Court recognizes implicit bias as relevant to Gilmore analysis; courts must guard against both purposeful and implicit discrimination.
What remedies/procedures should govern juror background checks and related discovery?	State/AG: Prosecutors should be able to check when warranted; argue for best‑practice guidance.	Andujar/Amici: Require judicial oversight, disclosure to defense, and limits to protect juror privacy and impartiality.	Supervisory rules: court approval required; opposing counsel notified; shared results; juror questioned on record; narrow presumptively invalid bases; post‑empanelment checks allowed only for compelling reasons.

Key Cases Cited

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (framework for challenging race‑based peremptory strikes)
State v. Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508 (New Jersey’s peremptory‑challenge framework under state constitution)
State v. Osorio, 199 N.J. 486 (refinement of Gilmore’s three‑step Batson analysis)
Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228 (disparate questioning/investigation can indicate discriminatory intent)
Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (defendant’s standing to raise Batson claims on behalf of excluded jurors)
Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (historical precursor addressing burdens for showing systematic discrimination)