Bill Text: NJ S1800 | 2020-2021 | Regular Session | Introduced
Bill Title: Prohibits juror disqualification based on gender identity or sexual orientation; codifies procedures when discriminatory use of peremptory challenges is alleged.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2020-02-24 - Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee [S1800 Detail]
Download: New_Jersey-2020-S1800-Introduced.html
Sponsored by:
Senator M. TERESA RUIZ
District 29 (Essex)
SYNOPSIS
Prohibits juror disqualification based on gender identity or sexual orientation; codifies procedures when discriminatory use of peremptory challenges is alleged.
CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT
As introduced.
An Act concerning disqualification from jury service, amending R.S.10:1-8 and N.J.S.2B:23-10 and supplementing Title 2B of the New Jersey Statutes.
Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:
1. R.S.10:1-8 is amended to read as follows:
10:1-8. No citizen possessing all other qualifications prescribed by law shall be disqualified for service as a grand or petit juror in any court on account of race, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, marital status [or], sex, gender identity, or affectional or sexual orientation, and any officer or other person charged with any duty in the selection or summoning of jurors who shall purposely or knowingly exclude or fail to summon any citizen for the cause aforesaid shall [, on conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined not more than $5,000.00] be subject to a civil penalty of $5,000 which shall be collected in a summary proceeding pursuant to the "Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999," P.L.1999, c.274 (C.2A:58-10 et seq.).
(cf: P.L.1970, c.80, s.3)
2. N.J.S.2B:23-10 is amended to read as follows:
2B:23-10. Examination of jurors. a. In the discretion of the court, parties to any trial may question any person summoned as a juror after the name is drawn and before the swearing, and without the interposition of any challenge, to determine whether or not to interpose a peremptory challenge or a challenge for cause. Such examination shall be permitted in order to disclose whether or not the juror is qualified, impartial and without interest in the result of the action. The questioning shall be conducted in open court under the trial judge's supervision.
b. (Deleted by amendment, P.L.2007, c.204).
c. In any civil or criminal trial, no party shall purposefully use a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of an assumption that the prospective juror cannot be fair and impartial in carrying out the duties of a juror:
(1) due to any personal characteristic set forth in R.S.10:1-8; or
(2) because the prospective juror is a member of a constitutionally protected class.
(cf: P.L.2007, c.204, s.4)
3. (New section) a. A party objecting to the peremptory challenge of a prospective juror may establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination:
(1) by showing that the challenge was exercised in violation of subsection c. of N.J.S.2B:23-10, and
(2) by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference of discriminatory purpose.
b. When a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination is established, the burden shifts to the party who used the peremptory challenge to show that the exclusion was, in the discretion of the court, the product of an acceptable situation-specific basis and a reasoned, neutral purpose.
c. The court shall weigh the basis for the objection to the use of the peremptory challenge against the credibility of the proffered reasons for the prospective juror's exclusion. The court shall determine whether the explanations provided for the use of the peremptory challenge are a pretext or have a reasoned, neutral purpose. If the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the reasons stated for the use of the peremptory challenge are the product of an acceptable situation-specific basis and have a reasoned, neutral purpose supported by the record, the court shall permit the use of the peremptory challenge. Otherwise, the court shall deny the peremptory challenge and proceed as provided in subsection d. of this section. The court shall state the basis for its ruling on the record.
d. In addition to any other sanctions as may be provided by the Rules of Court, if the court denies the exclusion of a prospective juror by the use of peremptory challenge on the basis of purposeful discrimination, the court may employ one or more of the following remedies to assure a fair and impartial trial to all parties, redress the constitutionally impermissible behavior, and expedite proceedings:
(1) after consultation with counsel for each party, reseat the wrongfully excused juror;
(2) order the forfeiture of the peremptory challenge that was improperly used;
(3) dismiss the jury panel and start jury selection anew; or
(4) order the forfeiture of one peremptory challenge of the party who sought to use a peremptory challenge for purposeful discrimination or order the addition of one peremptory challenge for the other party.
4. This act shall take effect immediately.
STATEMENT
R.S.10:1-8 provides that no citizen possessing all other qualifications prescribed by law shall be disqualified for jury service on account of race, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, marital status, or sex.
This bill would add gender identity and affectional or sexual orientation to this list of grounds enumerated in the statute. The bill would also eliminate the criminalization in R.S.10:1-8 for disqualifying a juror on discriminatory grounds. Under the bill, a person who violates the statute would not be guilty of a crime but would be subject to a civil penalty of $5,000, to be collected under the "Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999," P.L.1999, c.274 (C.2A:58-10 et seq.). The bill would also add a requirement that a violation of the statute would occur only if the person acts purposely or knowingly.
In addition, this bill amends N.J.S.2B:23-10, concerning prospective jurors, to provide that a party shall not use a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of an assumption that the prospective juror is biased merely because of a characteristic set forth in R.S.10:1-8 or any other constitutionally impermissible grounds.
Peremptory challenges, which are authorized by N.J.S.2B:23-10 and N.J.S.2B:23-13 and by R.1:8-3 of the court rules, allow a party to dismiss a prospective juror before trial without stating a reason for the dismissal.
The bill would also supplement the current law concerning peremptory challenges to establish specific procedures which would go into effect if there is an allegation that a party is using peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner. This section is modeled on standards set out in "Principles for Juries & Jury Trials," promulgated by the American Bar Association in 2005.
Under the bill, a party objecting to the peremptory challenge of a prospective juror may establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination:
(1) by showing that the challenge was exercised in violation of subsection c. of N.J.S.2B:23-10, and
(2) by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference of discriminatory purpose.
The bill provides that when a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination is established, the burden shifts to the party who used the peremptory challenge to show that the exclusion was, in the discretion of the court, the product of an acceptable situation-specific basis and a reasoned, neutral purpose.
The court would weigh the basis for the objection to the use of the peremptory challenge against the credibility of the proffered reasons for the prospective juror's exclusion. The court would determine whether the explanations provided for the use of the peremptory challenge are a pretext or have a reasoned, neutral purpose. If the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the reasons stated for the use of the peremptory challenge are the product of an acceptable situation-specific basis and have a reasoned, neutral purpose supported by the record, the court would permit the use of the peremptory challenge. Otherwise, the court would deny the peremptory challenge and proceed as provided in the amendments. The court would state the basis for its ruling on the record.
The bill provides that, in addition to any other sanctions as may be provided by the Rules of Court, if the court denies the exclusion of a prospective juror by the use of peremptory challenge on the basis of purposeful discrimination, the court may employ one or more of the following remedies to assure a fair and impartial trial to all parties, redress the constitutionally impermissible behavior, and expedite proceedings:
(1) after consultation with counsel for each party, reseat the wrongfully excused juror;
(2) order the forfeiture of the peremptory challenge that was improperly used;
(3) dismiss the jury panel and start jury selection anew; or
(4) order the forfeiture of one peremptory challenge of the party who sought to use a peremptory challenge for purposeful discrimination or order the addition of one peremptory challenge for the other party.
