Bill > S1920

Introduced Session

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.

AI Summary

Committee Categories

Teresa Ruiz (D)*, 

Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee (on 02/22/2018)