Title: State of New Jersey v. Jeffrey Zhu

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. 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 Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). Verniero, J., writing for a unanimous Court. This appeal requires the Court to determine whether heightened security measures denied the defendants a fair trial by creating an unacceptable atmosphere suggestive of guilt. Defendants are members of a Chinese gang that smuggled illegal Chinese aliens into the United States for a $20,000 to $30,000 per person fee paid at the rate of $1,000 per month after arrival. To enable them to meet these payments while working in low-paying jobs, the aliens often resided in inexpensive, gang-operated safe houses. In 1993, rival members within the gang decided that they would kill the gang's leaders so that they could take control of a shipload of illegal immigrants due to arrive off the coast of Massachusetts. On May 24, 1993, the rival members attacked a safe house in Teaneck, New Jersey, where four gang members and one illegal alien were residing, and shot or stabbed all of the occupants. Only the illegal alien survived. After obtaining witnesses' description of the getaway van, five of the defendants were arrested at a roadblock a short time after the shooting. The van contained blood-stained clothing, and police retrieved guns, knives, handcuffs, gasoline, and ammunition from the defendants and the safe house. Defendants were indicted on numerous counts of murder, attempted murder, felony murder, kidnaping, burglary, attempted arson, and various weapons offenses. Concern over the alleged gang rivalry resulted in the Bergen County Sheriff's Office proposing certain high-security procedures to be implemented at trial. The trial court conducted a hearing on the proposed measures, during which defense counsel questioned a Captain of the Sheriff's office regarding the plan. The Captain explained that the security was necessary because 1) they believed that an organized criminal group had threatened the lives of one or more defendants; 2) a family member of the judge, his staff, or the jurors could be held hostage and, in exchange for the family member's security, the judge, staff or juror would be compelled to smuggle a weapon into the courtroom; and 3) the large number of entrances to the courthouse made it possible for someone to bypass the security positioned at the main two entrances. At the hearing's conclusion, the trial court determined to enter an order adopting the procedures. The resulting May 30, 1995 order provided for the assignment of a sufficient number of officers to maintain one entrance for all participants, i.e., the judge, jury, defendants, defense attorneys, and prosecutor, another for the general public, and further required all those entering the courtroom to submit to magnetometer and package searches. The defendants would be transported daily from the county jail to the courthouse, and once inside, would be escorted from the holding areas through the corridors utilizing handcuffs and leg irons. All jurors would be held in the jury room and would not see the defendants as they were escorted. Once in the courtroom, the handcuffs and leg irons would be removed. Additional precautions included searching the courtroom prior to unlocking it, locking the courtroom during lunch, and prohibiting the carrying of firearms into the courtroom, even by the Sheriff's officers. The court's order advised that any party objecting to the provisions could seek review. Two defendants did so, and the Appellate Division denied the request. The trial began on September 11, 1995, and lasted forty-one days plus eight days for jury selection. As part of voir dire, each juror was informed that the Sheriff's office found increased security measures necessary for this trial, that searches of all persons would be conducted prior to entering the courtroom, and that the security measures had nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of each defendant and should not affect their verdict in any way. No other cautionary instructions were given to the jurors during the trial or before deliberations, and none were requested by the defendants. The State contends that the security plan, as implemented, resulted in ten to twelve officers being present in the courtroom daily, while the defendants claim there were between sixteen and twenty officers present on any given day. One officer stood directly behind each of the six defendants throughout the trial. The jury convicted the defendants on four counts of murder, two counts of attempted murder, two counts of kidnaping, one count of burglary, one count of attempted arson, and various weapons offenses. Defendants appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed their convictions and sentences and rejected defendants' claim that the courtroom security plan infringed on their presumed innocence and deprived them of a fair trial. This Court granted defendants' Petition for Certification to address only the security question. HELD: The heightened security measures in this case did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial before an impartial jury. 1. A corollary to a defendant's right to a fair trial, embedded in the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and in Article I, paragraph 10 of the New Jersey Constitution, is the right of a defendant to have his guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis of the evidence presented at trial. Courts have a duty to scrutinize those practices that pose a threat to fairness and do not serve an essential state purpose. The United States Supreme Court held, however, in Holbrook v. Flynn, that the deployment of security personnel in a courtroom is not inherently prejudicial, and set forth the appropriate inquiry for whenever a courtroom arrangement is challenged. That inquiry, i.e., whether an unacceptable risk is presented of impermissible factors coming into play, has not been met here. (Pp. 13-15) 2. The security measures did not pose an unacceptable risk of unfairness because nothing was presented to the jury that would have led them to conclude that they resulted from the conduct, character, or prior record of the defendants. Furthermore, all prospective jurors were asked in their questionnaires whether they understood that the increased security measures had nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the defendants. Citizens have become accustomed to the presence of security personnel in most public places, and these common practices help prevent jurors from drawing undue inferences from such measures in a courthouse setting. (Pp. 15-17 ) 3. Defendants' contention that the trial court abdicated its responsibility by surrendering control of the courtroom to the Sheriff is incorrect. Although additional findings in respect of the more intrusive aspects of the plan during the hearing on the security measures would have been desirable, the trial court did not act unreasonably. The crimes alleged in the indictment were the product of a violent, intra-gang rivalry capable of reaching into the courtroom. (Pp. 17-18) 4. Defendants also argue that numerous confrontations between Sheriff's officers and defense counsel contributed to an unacceptable trial atmosphere. The Court does not endorse those elements of the trial that seemingly fueled a contentious and sometimes bitter relationship between the officers and defense counsel. However, the hostility displayed by the Sheriff's officers toward the defense attorneys was, for the most part, out of the presence of the jury and could not have influenced the verdict. Any allegations that Sheriff's officers visited physical indignities on defendants at the jail when court was not in session are not before the Court for review. (Pp. 19-20) 5. The trial court has a non-delegable duty to approve measures recommended by the Sheriff consistent with the constitutional protections to which all defendants are entitled. While the trial court has wide discretion in determining proper security measures for the protection of the jury, defendants, counsel, witnesses and the public, trial courts must create an appropriate record of the reasons for enhanced security and the basis for the court's adoption of any such plans to assist in effective appellate review. (Pp. 20-22). 6. Here, the implementation of the security plan was not inherently suggestive of defendants' guilt and the presumption of innocence was not lost. Even assuming some slight error on the part of the trial court in the manner in which the security plan was adopted and implemented, or by the court's failure to deliver an unsolicited cautionary charge to reinforce the voir dire, such error was not clearly capable of contributing to the verdict in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendants' guilt. (Pp. 18) The judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, LaVECCHIA, AND ZAZZALI join in JUSTICE VERNIERO's opinion. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JEFFREY ZHU, Defendant-Appellant. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. XIN DAN LIN, Defendant-Appellant. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. YUN LIN, Defendant-Appellant. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHAO LIN FENG, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHO LEE LIN, Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________ STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SIMON LAU, Defendant-Appellant. Argued September 12, 2000 -- Decided October 23, 2000 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Stephen W. Kirsch, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, Counsel for appellant Xin Dan Lin and George W. Eckhardt, Designated Counsel, for appellant Jeffrey Zhu argued the cause for appellants (Ivelisse Torres, Public Defender, attorney; Mr. Kirsch, Mr. Eckhardt and Brian P. O'Reilly, Designated Counsel, for Xin Dan Lin, on the briefs). John J. Scaliti, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (William H. Schmidt, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney). Michael C. Kazer, Designated Counsel, submitted briefs on behalf of appellant Yun Lin (Ivelisse Torres, Public Defender, attorney). James F. Anderson, Designated Counsel, submitted letter briefs on behalf of appellant Chao Lin Feng (Ivelisse Torres, Public Defender, attorney). Charles B. Andre, Designated Counsel, submitted briefs on behalf of appellant Cho Lee Lin (Ivelisse Torres, Public Defender, attorney). Mark E. Tabakman, Designated Counsel, submitted a letter brief on behalf of appellant Simon Lau (Ivelisse Torres, Public Defender, attorney). Jeffrey Zhu submitted a supplemental brief pro se. The opinion of the Court was delivered by VERNIERO, J. Defendants were tried and convicted on murder and other charges stemming from a gang-related multiple homicide in Teaneck, New Jersey. At the trial that spanned several months, the County Sheriff implemented a plan of heightened security consisting of an increased presence of uniformed officers in the courtroom as well as other measures. We must determine whether the elevated security deprived defendants of their right to a fair trial by creating an unacceptable atmosphere suggestive of guilt. The Appellate Division concluded that defendants were not denied a fair trial. We agree and, therefore, affirm. NO. A-75/76/77/78/79/110 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JEFFREY ZHU, Defendant-Appellant. (and other related matters) DECIDED October 23, 2000 Chief Justice Poritz