Bill > S2249

Introduced Session

This bill would make it unlawful to disqualify a person from jury service based on the person's gender identity or affectional or sexual orientation. Under R.S.10:1-8, it is unlawful to disqualify a citizen for service as a grand or petit juror based on race, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, marital status, or sex if the citizen possesses all other qualifications prescribed by law. Any officer or other person responsible for the selection or summoning of jurors who excludes or fails to summon any citizen on such basis is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine of up to $5,000. This bill would add gender identity or affectional or sexual orientation to the enumerated grounds set out in the statute. P.L.1978, c.95, the "New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice," abolished the term "misdemeanor." This bill would update the statute to be consistent with the Code's classification scheme. Under this scheme, a "misdemeanor" under these circumstances would be treated as a crime of the fourth degree. (See N.J.S.2C:1-4, 2C:1-5, and 2C:43-1). This bill amends R.S.10:1-8 accordingly, making a violation of the statute a crime of the fourth degree. A crime of the fourth degree is generally punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to 18 months or a fine up to $10,000, or both. The bill deletes the reference in R.S.10:1-8 to a maximum fine of $5,000 for a violation of this offense. This would make the statute consistent with the maximum fine of $10,000 that is generally imposed under the Code for a crime of the fourth degree. 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. This bill would add a new section 2 to the bill amending 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 also adds a new section 3 concerning peremptory challenges. This new section is modeled on standards set out in "Principles for Juries & Jury Trials," promulgated by the American Bar Association in 2005. Section 3 provides that it shall be presumed that each party is utilizing peremptory challenges validly, without basing those challenges on constitutionally impermissible reasons. Under section 3 of the bill, a party objecting to the challenge of a prospective juror on the grounds that the challenge has been exercised on a constitutionally impermissible basis, establishes a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination: (1) by showing that the challenge was exercised against a member of a constitutionally cognizable group, and (2) by demonstrating that this fact, and any other relevant circumstances, raise an inference that the party challenged the prospective juror because of the juror's membership in that group. When a prima facie case of discrimination is established, the burden shifts to the party making the challenge to show a nondiscriminatory basis for the challenge. The bill provides that the court shall evaluate the credibility of the proffered reasons. If the court finds that the reasons stated are constitutionally permissible and are supported by the record, the court shall permit the challenge. If the court finds that the reasons for the challenge are constitutionally impermissible, the court shall deny the challenge and, after consultation with counsel, determine whether further remedy is appropriate. The court shall state the reasons, including whatever factual findings are appropriate, for sustaining or overruling the objection on the record. The bill sets out specific procedures that would go into effect if there is an allegation that a party is using peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner. 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 further 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. The bill also eliminates the criminalization in current law in R.S.10:1-8 for disqualifying a juror on discriminatory grounds. In the view of the sponsor, criminal prosecutions for this violation are unlikely. 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 also adds a requirement that a violation of the statute would occur only if the person acts purposely or knowingly.

AI Summary

Committee Categories

Teresa Ruiz (D)*,  Andrew Zwicker (D)*, 

Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee (on 01/09/2024)

Official Document