Opinion ID: 1536017
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: Random Jury Selection Process

Text: Defendant claims that the trial court's refusal to grant a stay to consider whether Hunterdon County was employing a random jury selection process violated his constitutional right to be tried by a jury that represents a cross-section of the community. A defense expert testified that given the size of the population in Hunterdon County, the high incidence of members of the same family called for jury duty suggested an error in the attempt to randomly select the jurors. Defendant wanted the trial court to grant a stay to give him time to investigate whether the county's jury selection process was nonrandom. Rule 1:8-3 provides that challenges to the jury array are to be initiated before any individual juror is examined. Relaxation of the rule should be granted only where there is a prima facie showing of actual prejudice to defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury. R. 1:1-2; State v. Butler, 155 N.J.Super. 270, 271, 382 A. 2d 696 (App.Div.1978). As a result, time limitations are strictly enforced because to do otherwise would impede the orderly administration of [the] criminal justice system. Gerald, supra, 113 N.J. at 128, 549 A. 2d 792. In this case, pursuant to Rule 1:8-5, defense counsel was provided a list of the general panel of petit jurors in September 1996 for defendant's trial commencing in October. Due to defendant's guilty plea, the panel was dismissed and a new list was compiled. A new list of jurors was given to defense counsel in November 1996 for the penalty phase that commenced in December. Preliminary jury selection was conducted on December 11 and 12, 1996, but because there had been a substitution of counsel for defendant, trial was adjourned until early March 1997 so that defense counsel would have an opportunity to prepare to conduct individual juror voir dire. Over 300 jurors were interviewed during fourteen consecutive court days commencing March 3, 1997. Defendant's request for a stay was not filed until the very last day of jury interviews, and the day before the final sixteen jurors were to be selected and the actual trial was scheduled to begin. The request for a delay was properly denied for several reasons. First, the request was untimely. Defendant had several months to identify jurors with the same last names. By simply reviewing the list at any time between November and March, defendant would have had an ample opportunity to challenge the jury array before any individual juror was examined. See State v. McClain, 263 N.J.Super. 488, 497, 623 A. 2d 280 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 134 N.J. 477, 634 A. 2d 524 (1993). See also R. 1:8-2; State v. Robinson, 128 N.J.Super. 525, 529, 320 A. 2d 533 (Law Div.1974) (denying challenge to grand jury array where defense counsel had many months to investigate). Second, defendant failed to make a  prima facie showing of actual prejudice. Butler, supra, 155 N.J.Super. at 271, 382 A. 2d 696. The most defendant offered the court was the fact that five pairs of related jurors were discovered during questioning and that nine other pairs of jurors had the same last names. Defense counsel did not even know whether the latter group of jurors was related. However, even assuming arguendo that all fourteen pairs of jurors were related, defendant's claim that his right to an impartial jury was jeopardized was merely speculative. He presented no additional facts to prove prejudice. Third, Hunterdon County is a small county. Considering the large number of jurors assembled for the false start in October and the even larger list of jurors assembled for the December start, coupled with the regular list of jurors assembled on a weekly basis and the need for jurors for another out-of-county capital case, there had been an enormous strain placed on the available prospective jury pool. As a result, the trial court properly was concerned that a third delay in the commencement of the trial would have had the substantial capacity to taint the alreadyquestioned and ready-to-be-selected jurors. Fourth, defendant did not contact any officials from Hunterdon County to register a complaint about the jury process. As the trial court stated: Whether it's the jury manager, county counsel, a representative of the assignment judge, county prosecutor's office, some appropriate official or authority... would have a right to be notified and heard, since it is the procedures of the Hunterdon County jury manager's office and this vicinage ..., which are being challenged and called into question here. Input from such officials is a necessary part of any hearing on the merits of such a motion. Finally, this Court in State v. Long and in Gerald did not mandate a stay. In both cases, the Court found that despite the apparent problems in the jury selection procedures, in the absence of any purposeful or ill-intentioned deviations and no clear evidence of statutory or constitutional violations, there was no basis to strike either panel and reversals were not warranted. State v. Long, 119 N.J. 439, 470-71, 575 A. 2d 435 (1990); Gerald, supra, 113 N.J. at 131, 549 A. 2d 792. Therefore, we find that the trial court properly denied defendant's request for a stay.