Case Title: In the Matter of the Request to Release Certain Pretrial Detainees

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2021-02-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
SYLLABUS

This syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. It has been prepared by the Office of the
Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the
Court. In the interest of brevity, portions of an opinion may not have been summarized.

          In the Matter of the Request to Release Certain Pretrial Detainees
                                 (M-550-20) (085186)

Argued January 20, 2021 -- Decided February 11, 2021

RABNER, C.J., writing for the Court.

      This Order to Show Cause raises questions about the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic and the suspension of in-person criminal jury trials on defendants who have
been detained pretrial.

       Under the Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA or Act), defendants who pose a
serious risk of non-appearance, danger, or obstruction can be detained before trial if no
combination of conditions of release will reasonably guard against those risks. Because
criminal jury trials remain suspended, the length of pretrial detention has been extended
in many cases.

       In response to the present situation, the Office of the Public Defender and the
American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey jointly seek two forms of relief: (1) the
release of all defendants detained for six months or longer whose most serious charge is a
second-degree offense or lower, with an opportunity for the State to object in individual
cases and seek to justify continued detention under an enhanced burden of proof; and (2)
new detention hearings for all defendants detained for six months or longer who are
charged with a first-degree offense and entitled to a presumption of release. Movants
rely on constitutional and statutory bases in support of their requests for relief.

       Due process concerns can impose limits on pretrial detention. Courts look to
various considerations to assess that type of due process challenge, not just the length of
detention. The fact-specific inquiry called for is best conducted on an individual basis in
order to balance the relevant factors and assess the level of risk each defendant presents.
By contrast, broad-based relief for large categories of defendants could sweep in cases in
which release from detention would not be appropriate.

       The Court declines to grant relief on a categorical basis for other reasons as well.
Movants argue that prolonged detention before trial could raise serious due process
concerns, but they do not contend the statutory scheme is unconstitutional at this time.
As a result, the doctrine of judicial surgery, which is designed to save an otherwise
unconstitutional statute, is not available. Nor can the Court exercise its rulemaking
authority to amend the substance of the Act.
                                             1
HELD:         *Section 19(f) of the CJRA offers a path for potential relief under the
present circumstances. Under that provision,  N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(f), individual
defendants can apply to reopen detention hearings if they can present information that
was not known at the time of the initial hearing and that “has a material bearing” on the
release decision.

               *The unexpected duration of the pandemic coupled with the continued
suspension of jury trials, with no clear end date for either, constitutes new information
within the meaning of  N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(f). Materiality presents a separate issue and
depends on a defendant’s individual circumstances. To assess whether delays caused by
the pandemic are material to the level of risk a defendant poses, trial judges can consider
the following factors: (1) the length of detention to date as well as the projected length of
ongoing detention; (2) whether a defendant has been or will be in detention longer than
the likely amount of time the person would actually spend in jail if convicted; (3) the
existence and nature of a plea offer; (4) a defendant’s particularized health risks, if any,
and whether they present a heightened risk the individual will contract COVID-19; and
(5) other factors relevant to pretrial detention that are outlined in  N.J.S.A. 2A:162-20.

               *Defendants who have been detained for at least six months, and can make
a preliminary showing that they are entitled to relief based on one or more of the above
factors, have the right to reopen their detention hearings under section 19(f). Trial judges
have discretion to resolve motions that do not meet both conditions without holding a
hearing. Hearings should be conducted on an expedited basis in the trial court, and
reviewed in the same manner on appeal. Defendants subject to a presumption of
detention -- those charged with murder or facing a sentence of life imprisonment -- will
likely not be eligible for new hearings.

1. Movants concede the CJRA is constitutional but argue that continued detention raises
potentially serious due process concerns. The pretrial detention process is constitutional
so long as it serves regulatory rather than punitive purposes. But if pretrial detention
under a regulatory scheme is significantly prolonged, a defendant’s confinement may
become punitive. Whether the length of detention violates due process in that way
requires assessment on a case-by-case basis; due process is a flexible concept that does
not necessarily set a bright line limit for length of pretrial confinement. (pp. 10-11)

2. The CJRA contains various time limits designed to move cases toward trial. The
Court does not find that the pandemic, along with the accompanying suspension of in-
person criminal jury trials, has transformed the CJRA’s overall approach to pretrial
detention into a punitive scheme. Yet individual cases, which are not the subject of the
Order to Show Cause, can be subject to challenge on due process grounds. The length of
detention alone is not dispositive. A more comprehensive, fact-specific inquiry in each
case is needed, and relief tied only to the length of detention for large categories of
defendants would not be appropriate for a variety of reasons. Cases are best examined on
                                             2
an individual basis, which the CJRA provides for under the present circumstances. The
constitutional remedies movants propose -- judicial surgery and the Court’s rulemaking
authority -- are thus not well-suited for the current circumstances. (pp. 12-17)

3.  N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(f) presents a path for individual defendants to argue against
continued detention when (1) there is new information, or a change in circumstances,
(2) that is material to the release decision. As to the first prong, the Court has found “that
the worldwide pandemic that has afflicted New Jersey and its prison system amounts to a
change in circumstances” within the meaning of Rule 3:21-10(b)(2). In re Request to
Modify Prison Sentences,  242 N.J. 357, 379 (2020). That finding logically extends to
section 19(f). Section 19(f)’s second prong -- materiality -- will vary by defendant and
turn on the particular facts of each case. The critical question at a hearing that is
reopened is not whether the initial detention decision was correct, but whether the
circumstances at the time of the later hearing warrant continued detention. That issue
calls for a renewed examination of whether any combination of conditions would
reasonably assure against the risk of non-appearance, danger, or obstruction in light of
delays caused by the pandemic.  N.J.S.A. 2A:162-18, -19(f). (pp. 17-20)

4. The Court explains in detail the five factors courts can consider to assess those risks.
Noting it is far less likely courts would find material changes in the case of defendants
detained for less than six months, the Court holds that defendants have the right to reopen
detention hearings under  N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(f) if they (1) have been detained for at least
six months and (2) can make a preliminary showing that, based on one or more of the five
factors, they are entitled to relief. (Because disorderly persons offenses are punishable by
up to six months in jail, judges have discretion to entertain and review motions from
defendants charged only with such an offense before those defendants have been detained
for six months.) Those threshold requirements are meant to limit hearings to defendants
who are better able to show a material change in the level of risk they present, in the
context of the pandemic and the delays it has caused. Trial judges have discretion to
resolve motions that do not meet both conditions without holding a hearing. (pp. 20-25)

5. New hearings may proceed before the same judge who conducted the original hearing
or another judge in the vicinage. The Court directs that trial judges conduct reopened
hearings in appropriate cases on an expedited basis, and that any appeals be reviewed in
the same manner. The Court asks the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts
to help implement a timely process at the trial and appellate levels. (p. 26)

6. Movants identify  N.J.S.A. 2A:162-21(b) as an alternative statutory basis for relief.
The Court explains why it has instead focused on section 19(f). (pp. 26-27)

       The request for relief is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, PATTERSON, FERNANDEZ-VINA,
SOLOMON, and PIERRE-LOUIS join in CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER’s opinion.
                                              3
       SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
            M-
550 September Term 2020
                       085186

           In the Matter of the Request to
          Release Certain Pretrial Detainees

 On an Order to Show Cause to Address the Release
  of Certain Individuals Detained Pretrial, Among
              Other Relief Requested.

       Argued                       Decided
   January 20, 2021             February 11, 2021

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, argued the cause for
the Office of the Public Defender (Joseph E. Krakora,
Public Defender, attorney; Joseph E. Krakora, Joseph J.
Russo, Assistant Public Defender, Alison Perrone, First
Assistant Deputy Public Defender, Laura B. Lasota,
Assistant Deputy Public Defender, and Elizabeth C. Jarit,
Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the briefs).

Alexander Shalom argued the cause for the American
Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (American Civil
Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, attorneys;
Alexander Shalom and Jeanne LoCicero, on the briefs).

Claudia Joy Demitro, Deputy Attorney General, argued
the cause for the Attorney General of New Jersey,
(Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Carol M.
Henderson, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel and
on the brief, and Claudia Joy Demitro, Jennifer E.
Kmieciak, Deputy Attorney General, and Mercedes N.
Robertson, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on
the brief).

                          1
            Anthony J. Robinson, First Assistant Warren County
            Prosecutor, argued the cause for the County Prosecutors
            Association of New Jersey (Esther Suarez, President,
            County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey, attorney;
            Anthony J. Robinson, John McNamara, Jr., Special
            Deputy Attorney General/Acting Chief Assistant Morris
            County Prosecutor, Paul H. Heinzel, Assistant Somerset
            County Prosecutor, and Jessica Marshall, Special Deputy
            Attorney General/Assistant Morris County Prosecutor, on
            the brief).

        CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER delivered the opinion of the Court.

      This Order to Show Cause raises questions about the impact of the

COVID-19 pandemic and the suspension of in-person criminal jury trials on

defendants who have been detained pretrial.

      Under the Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA or Act), defendants who

pose a serious risk of non-appearance, danger, or obstruction can be detained

before trial if no combination of conditions of release will reasonably guard

against those risks.  N.J.S.A. 2A:162-15. According to the Administrative

Office of the Courts (AOC), more than 4,900 defendants were detained and

awaiting trial in late January 2021. Few criminal jury trials have been held

since March 2020, however, because of the health risks that in-person trials

pose to jurors, participants, and members of the public with whom they

interact. Because criminal jury trials remain suspended, the length of pretrial

detention has been extended in many cases.

                                       2
      In response to the present situation, the Office of the Public Defender

and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU) jointly seek

two forms of relief: (1) the release of all defendants detained for six months or

longer whose most serious charge is a second-degree offense or lower, with an

opportunity for the State to object in individual cases and seek to justify

continued detention under an enhanced burden of proof; and (2) new detention

hearings under  N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(f) for all defendants detained for six

months or longer who are charged with a first-degree offense and entitled to a

presumption of release. Movants rely on constitutional and statutory bases in

support of their requests for relief.

      We recognize that due process concerns can impose limits on pretrial

detention. Courts look to various considerations to assess that type of due

process challenge, not just the length of detention. The fact-specific inquiry

called for is best conducted on an individual basis in order to balance the

relevant factors and assess the level of risk each defendant presents. By

contrast, broad-based relief for large categories of defendants could sweep in

cases in which release from detention would not be appropriate.

      We decline to grant relief on a categorical basis for other reasons as

well. Movants argue that prolonged detention before trial could render the

CJRA punitive, rather than regulatory, and thereby raise serious due process

                                        3
concerns. But they do not contend the statutory scheme is unconstitutional at

this time. As a result, the doctrine of judicial surgery, which is designed to

save an otherwise unconstitutional statute, see State v. Natale,  184 N.J. 458,

485-86 (2005), is not available. Nor can the Court exercise its rulemaking

authority to amend the substance of the Act. See N.J. Const. art. VI, § 2, ¶ 3;

Winberry v. Salisbury,  5 N.J. 240, 247-48 (1950).

      Section 19(f) of the CJRA offers a path for potential relief under the

present circumstances. See  N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(f). Under that provision,

individual defendants can apply to reopen detention hearings if they can

present information that was not known at the time of the initial hearing and

that “has a material bearing” on the release decision. Ibid.

      We hold that the unexpected duration of the pandemic coupled with the

continued suspension of jury trials, with no clear end date for either,

constitutes new information within the meaning of the statute. Materiality

presents a separate issue and depends on a defendant’s individual

circumstances. To assess whether delays caused by the pandemic are material

to the level of risk a defendant poses, trial judges can consider the following

factors: (1) the length of detention to date as well as the projected length of

ongoing detention; (2) whether a defendant has been or will be in detention

longer than the likely amount of time the person would actually spend in jail if

                                        4
convicted; (3) the existence and nature of a plea offer; (4) a defendant’s

particularized health risks, if any, and whether they present a heightened risk

the individual will contract COVID-19; and (5) other factors relevant to

pretrial detention that are outlined in  N.J.S.A. 2A:162-20.

      Defendants who have been detained for at least six months, and can

make a preliminary showing that they are entitled to relief based on one or

more of the above factors, have the right to reopen their detention hearings

under section 19(f). Such hearings should be conducted on an expedited basis

in the trial court, and reviewed in the same manner on appeal. Defendants

subject to a presumption of detention under the statute -- those charged with

murder or facing a sentence of life imprisonment -- will likely not be eligible

for new hearings. See  N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(b).

      We therefore grant in part and deny in part the relief sought. Eligible

defendants may apply to reopen their detention hearings under section 19(f) at

this time.

                                        I.

      On December 4, 2020, the Office of the Public Defender and the ACLU

jointly applied to this Court to enter an Order to Show Cause. Movants seek

two types of relief:

                                        5
                  (1) the release of all defendants detained under the CJRA for

            six months or longer whose most serious charge is a second-degree

            offense or lower. If the State objected, it would have to

            demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that no conditions would

            reasonably assure against the serious and imminent risk of non-

            appearance, danger, or obstruction. Judges or special masters

            from a county other than where the case is assigned would preside

            over matters in which an objection is raised; and

                  (2) new detention hearings under  N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(f) for

            all defendants detained for six months or longer who are charged

            with a first-degree offense and entitled to a presumption of release.

            The Act’s clear and convincing evidence standard would apply to

            the hearings, which judges or special masters from another county

            would conduct.

      Movants thus seek to modify the statute in two ways: requiring judges

to find that defendants pose a “serious and imminent” risk; and imposing a

higher standard of proof -- “beyond a reasonable doubt” in place of “clear and

convincing evidence.”

      At the core of movants’ application is a simple reality: in-person

criminal jury trials have been suspended because of COVID-19, which has led

                                       6
to the continued detention of many pretrial detainees. As of February 8, 2021,

according to the AOC, 4,937 detained defendants were being held pretrial on

the following categories of offenses: 1,842 on a first-degree offense; 1,780 on

a second-degree offense; 1,044 on a third-degree offense; 243 on a fourth-

degree offense; and 28 on a disorderly persons offense. 1

      As of December 4, 2020, the Office of the Public Defender estimated

that about 650 of its clients charged with second-, third-, or fourth-degree

crimes had been detained for six months or longer, and that an additional 400

clients charged with first-degree offenses were in the same position.

      The Court asked movants to present legal authority in support of their

position. Shortly after they submitted written arguments, the Court entered an

Order to Show Cause. The Attorney General and the County Prosecutors

Association of New Jersey (CPA) submitted briefs in opposition on December

30, 2020.

                                       II.

      We note certain basic points at the outset. First, each of the defendants

for whom relief is now sought had a court hearing after their arrest, at which

counsel represented them. See  N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(d), (e). At the hearings,

1
  The numbers have been adjusted to account for eligible defendants detained
in more than one case.
                                     7
judges considered a broad array of factors to assess the level of risk each

person posed. See id. at -20. The nature and degree of the charged offenses

were only part of that review.

      At hearings that involved certain serious charges, a presumption of

detention applied, which a number of defendants were unable to rebut. See id.

at -19(b) (providing a rebuttable presumption of detention when the court finds

probable cause that a defendant committed murder or any crime that exposes

the person to life imprisonment).

      In the larger group of cases that did not involve a presumption of

detention, courts found by clear and convincing evidence that no combination

of conditions of release “would reasonably assure the eligible defendant’s

appearance in court when required, the protection of the safety of any other

person or the community, and that the eligible defendant will not obstruct or

attempt to obstruct the criminal justice process.” Id. at -18(a)(1). Thus, each

defendant ordered detained pretrial presented a high level of risk in at least one

of three areas.

      Second, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic prompted the pending request

for relief. The parties differ about the impact of the pandemic in county jails.

Movants contend that inmates face a heightened risk of contracting COVID-19

in jail. They point to the number of documented cases and deaths among

                                        8
inmates in New Jersey correctional facilities. As of February 9, 2021, there

have been 4,283 cases and 52 deaths. Dep’t of Corr., COVID 19 Updates,

https://www.state.nj.us/corrections/pages/COVID19Updates.shtml.

      In response, the State highlights efforts to reduce the prison population

and prevent the spread of COVID-19 among prisoners. See In re Request to

Modify Prison Sentences,  242 N.J. 357, 381 n.3 (2020) (discussing consent

order to reduce the county jail population); Exec. Order No. 124 (April 10,

2020),  52 N.J.R. 963(a) (May 4, 2020) (creating process to identify and

furlough certain inmates in state prison); L. 2020, c. 111 (eff. Nov. 4, 2020)

(awarding public health emergency jail credits). The Attorney General also

points to data that reveals a drop in the number of reported recent cases and

deaths: 733 new cases for the week of May 27, 2020, compared to 164 new

cases the week of December 15; and 6 deaths since July with none since

September. See The Marshall Project, A State-by-State Look at Coronavirus

in Prisons, (as updated Jan. 29, 2021), https://www.themarshallproject.org/

2020/05/01/a-state-by-state-look-at-coronavirus-in-prisons.

      We need not make specific findings here aside from recognizing the

obvious: COVID-19 has created an ongoing health crisis of enormous

proportions for all of society -- including individuals held in jail.

                                         9
                                        III.

      Movants identify two potential sources of authority for the relief they

seek -- constitutional and statutory. We begin with the constitutional points

raised.

      Movants made significant and thoughtful concessions in their briefs and

at oral argument. They concede the CJRA is constitutional.2 They also stress

the law’s constitutionality is tied to a defendant’s right to a jury trial and the

ability to exercise that right within a reasonable period of time.

      Movants submit they are pursuing relief now to ensure the continued

constitutionality of the Act. The thrust of their argument is that continued

detention raises potentially serious due process concerns that would require

intervention. They contend that prolonged detention of defendants pretrial

would render the Act punitive, rather than regulatory. See United States v.

Salerno,