Opinion ID: 1476684
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Inflammatory publicity

Text: The concern associated with the juror contacts by the reporter and ex-assistant public defender is that the contacts provided extraneous, prejudicial information to jurors. We must assess that concern in context, understanding the threat that existed throughout defendant's trial that jury deliberations might be tainted by inflammatory publicity. Indeed, defendant argues that the Court should assess this issue in light of the presumptively prejudicial media coverage of his case. As this Court recognized, [t]here can be no doubt that this case was accompanied by widespread, inherently prejudicial pretrial media coverage. Harris I, supra, 156 N.J. at 145, 716 A. 2d 458. The trial court understandably accused the Trentonian of embarking on a `vengeance seeking crusade' against defendant in publishing a `constant,' `prolonged,' and `sensationalized' `stream of invective.' Ibid. Dramatically prejudicial headlines referred to Harris as a monster, a beast, a maggot, and satan in disguise. Id. at 145, 151, 716 A. 2d 458; id. at 214, 716 A. 2d 458 (Handler, J., dissenting). That paper quoted local citizens as stating: No trial. . . Just get on with it and fry him; Why don't we have a public hanging on Trenton High's Football Field? ... I'll pay for the rope! Id. at 214, 716 A. 2d 458 (Handler, J., dissenting); Most people figure the jury would think, `We'll have lunch on the county, and we'll squirt himthis afternoon.' Id. at 151, 716 A. 2d 458. Other quoted opinions referred to Harris's extensive criminal record and offered various modes of execution. Id. at 216, 716 A. 2d 458 (Handler, J., dissenting). To protect defendant's rights, the trial court ordered the empanelment of a foreign jury; however, the inflammatory publicity continued throughout the trials. After the jury convicted defendant, defense counsel moved to sequester the jurors and to conduct an individualized voir dire. Id. at 150, 716 A. 2d 458. The court denied both motions, opting instead to conduct a collective voir dire in open court. This Court affirmed those denials, id. at 150-54, 716 A. 2d 458, holding that the collective voir dire was sufficient to show that no prejudicial exposure had occurred in the particular circumstances. Id. at 153, 716 A. 2d 458. We noted that whenever defense counsel requested a voir dire on the prejudicial media coverage, the court did ask the jurors to acknowledge by a show of hands if they had seen or read any news accounts of the trial and that on each of these occasions it received no response. Id. at 151, 716 A. 2d 458. The negative response received on each occasion disclosed that jury exposure [to media coverage] did not occur and supported the court's discretionary decision that individual voir dire was unnecessary. Id. at 153, 716 A. 2d 458.