Opinion ID: 1992848
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Individualized voir dire

Text: During the guilt phase, without objection, the trial court conducted an in banc voir dire of the jury. Sixteen prospective jurors from the entire venire were called for questioning and told to provide responses to any question that applied to them. The court instructed the remaining venire to listen very carefully to all of the court's remarks and questions. In the event that one or any of these persons are excused, then it's going to be necessary to replace them with someone from the courtroom. Rather than repeat all of the questions ... I'm simply going to ask you if you've heard everything ... and whether or not you have any responses. The court further repeatedly instructed the jurors that, if they felt uncomfortable responding to any question, they could wait for a few more questions and then raise their hands and seek a sidebar meeting to discuss the issue on a more private level. The court then read the entire indictment. It asked whether the jurors knew anything about the case. The trial court next described the location where the crime took place, and asked if anyone was familiar with that location. The trial court again questioned all jurors furnishing affirmative responses and asked counsel whether additional questioning was needed. The next day the court continued voir dire and employed the same procedure, again encouraging jurors to approach the court at sidebar to discuss sensitive issues. The court listed all potential witnesses and individuals whose names were likely to be mentioned during trial, asking whether any juror knew any of them. Given that many witnesses would be law enforcement officers, the court asked whether any juror would be inclined to give more or less weight to their testimony. The trial court also inquired whether any juror, their family, or close friends had ever been employed by the Mercer County Prosecutor's Office or any other law enforcement agency; whether they had been victims of a crime; had ever been accused of a crime; whether they had prior service on a grand or petit jury, and, to those who acknowledged prior civil jury service, explained the differing burdens involved in civil and criminal actions. If a juror responded affirmatively to any of these questions, the court questioned that juror more specifically. Each juror was then required to provide pedigree information such as name, residence, marital status, and occupations of themselves and their spouses. For every juror, the court turned to counsel and asked whether they had any additional questions or applications and, at the end, asked counsel if they desired additional sidebar. To each request, counsel responded negatively. Rule 1:8-3(a) provides that the court shall interrogate the prospective jurors in the box after the required number are drawn without placing them under oath.... At trials of crimes punishable by death, the examination shall be made of each juror individually, as his name is drawn, and under oath. Defendant contends that the in banc voir dire violated both the requirement of Rule 1:8-3(a) and also failed to provide the heightened need for juror impartiality in capital cases (citing State v. Williams, 93 N.J. 39, 61, 459 A. 2d 641 (1983) ( Williams I )). An individualized voir dire is required in capital cases pursuant to Rule 1:8-3(a) for two reasons. One purpose is to ascertain whether [the juror's opinion regarding capital punishment] disables him from discharging the statutory duty to decide what the punishment should be. State v. Mathis, 52 N.J. 238, 245, 245 A. 2d 20 (1968)(emphasis added), rev'd in part on other grounds, 403 U.S. 946, 91 S.Ct. 2277, 29 L.Ed. 2d 855 (1971); see also State v. Williams, 113 N.J. 393, 413, 550 A. 2d 1172 (1988) ( Williams II ) (viewing extensive voir dire as necessary to death-qualify the jury). The second purpose behind the individualized voir dire is to ensure that attorneys are more informed and better able to exercise their challenges in order to ensure an impartial jury. Ibid. While an in banc voir dire is ordinarily deemed adequate to ensure an impartial jury, we insist on an individualized voir dire for capital cases [b]ecause of the range of discretion entrusted to a jury in a capital sentencing hearing. Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28, 35, 106 S.Ct. 1683, 1688, 90 L.Ed. 2d 27, 35 (1986) (affirming conviction but reversing sentence due to failure to conduct voir dire adequate for sentencing jury). Because juries have so much more discretion, there is a greater need to screen out those jurors who cannot be impartial. We find no error in the trial court's decision to conduct an in banc voir dire. In State v. Manley, 54 N.J. 259, 282-83, 255 A. 2d 193 (1969), the Court set forth the reasons for the adoption of Rule 1:8-3(a) and its belief that the in banc procedure would provide an impartial jury. The purposes behind an individualized voir dire are unique to the sentencing phase. The guilt-phase jury in this case was not determining the sentence, and thus was not deciding a case in which death could be the punishment. Therefore, Rule 1:8-3(a) does not require an individualized voir dire. [1] Moreover, defendant's claim that an individualized rather than an in banc proceeding would have led to more candid responses by jurors is unsupported by the evidence. There is no indication in the record that the prospective jurors were not fully candid with the court or would have been more candid if they were asked the questions in an individualized voir dire. Defendant points to jurors who failed to disclose criminal backgrounds; however, those jurors were all questioned at sidebar, in an individualized manner, yet still failed to disclose the information. Because all the examples cited by defendant occurred initially at sidebar when a new panelist replaced a prospective juror struck by a peremptory challenge, defendant's assertion that prospective jurors kept silent for fear of other people learning their secrets is unfounded. Although no voir dire is perfect, State v. Martini, 131 N.J. 176, 217, 619 A. 2d 1208 (1993) ( Martini I ), we are satisfied that this voir dire was sufficient to secure an impartial jury in the guilt phase. The trial court's voir dire was thorough and probing. After eight peremptory challenges by the defense and seven by the State, both the defense and the State agreed that the empanelled jury was satisfactory.