Opinion ID: 298976
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Challenge to the Array of the Grand Jury

Text: 38 During the course of making several preliminary motions, counsel for Laws challenged the array of the Grand Jury on the ground that Negroes had been systematically excluded from serving. See Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965), rehearing denied, 381 U.S. 921, 85 S.Ct. 1528, 14 L.Ed.2d 442 (1965). The relevant portion of the transcript reveals the following: 39 Mr. Bertini: I will challenge the array. I make a motion challenging the array of the Grand Jury.The Court: The Grand Jury? 40 Mr. Bertini: Yes. 41 The Court: Your motion is denied without argument. 42 Mr. Bertini: On the ground- 43 The Court: Let me hear the grounds. 44 Mr. Bertini: That members of the defendants' color have not been on the Grand Jury in the numbers that ought to be. 45 The Court: What are those numbers? 46 Mr. Bertini: I don't know. I think we will have to investigate. 47 The Court: Wait a minute. You have had seven months to investigate this and you are coming over here a minute before the trial begins and saying that the Grand Jury of Bergen County was illegally selected by virtue of the fact that colored persons have been are you saying deliberately? 48 Mr. Bertini: Systematically. 49 The Court: Systematically and deliberately? 50 Mr. Bertini: I didn't say deliberately. 51 The Court: Excluded? 52 Mr. Galda: I submit I know some of the people of that race who have sat on many of our Grand Juries. 53 The Court: So does our Court know of that. 54 Mr. Bertini: I am talking about the one man one vote principle. 55 The Court: One man one vote principle? 56 Mr. Bertini: I think the Supreme Court has got to place where there is justice, equality, et cetera. I say the ratio is not the proper proportion. 57 The Court: You tell me what the ratio is in Bergen County since you are making such a charge. Tell me what the ratio in Bergen County should be. 58 Mr. Bertini: I think if the defendant questions it we should investigate it. 59 The Court: Why didn't you investigate it? Your motion is denied. 60 Do you wish to add anything? 61 Mr. Monaghan: I join in Mr. Bertini's motion on that. 62 The Court: How about you, Mr. Gross? 63 Mr. Gross [counsel for Baker]: I have no statement to make. 64 The Court: Thank you, Mr. Gross. 65 Transcript at 1.59-1.61. 66 The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the trial court and stated: Under the circumstances, any other course would have grossly disserved the orderly administration of justice. 50 N.J. at 183, 233 A.2d at 645. See R.R. 3:3-2 (1968). In his petition to the District Court, Laws supports his argument by citing State of New Jersey v. Rochester, 105 N.J.Super. 529, 253 A.2d 558 (1967), aff'd, 54 N.J. 85, 253 A.2d 474 (1969). The District Court decided that Laws was not entitled to any relief since he presented no supporting facts for his assertion of systematic exclusion of Negroes from the Bergen County Grand Jury. Wade v. Yeager, 377 F.2d 841, 845 (3 Cir. 1967). We agree with the conclusion that Laws is entitled to no relief on this theory but base our holding on the fact that Laws did not present his motion at trial in a legally sufficient manner under New Jersey law. His motion, which was not made until the first day of the trial, was unsupported by any facts which, if true, would entitle Laws to the relief requested. Thus, under our view, it is unnecessary to consider the constitutional question of systematic exclusion, for Laws failed to make a proper and timely challenge under New Jersey law. Compare Wade v. Yeager, supra, at 846. 67 VI. Conduct of the Trial Judge and Prosecutor 68 Laws had raised a number of issues concerning the judge's charge and the conduct of the prosecutor. We have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no constitutional error in either the judge's charge or in his conduct or in the conduct of the prosecutor. 69 The order of the District Court will be affirmed. 11 70 The court wishes to thank court-appointed counsel for his able representation of the appellant.