Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Appellate newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (October 13, 2020, 10:34 PM EDT ) The New Jersey state appeals court refused to revive a challenge to the state's hybrid system of selecting juries via remote and in-person proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic, ruling Monday that the process maintained the "core components" of jury screening prior to the pandemic.
A three-judge panel shut down Wildemar A. Dangcil's bid to halt his trial in an attempted arson case, affirming a lower court's finding that the parties were able to thoroughly examine 178 prospective jurors virtually. The trial was temporarily stayed "due to the significance of the issues presented," the appeals court's order said, but it will now resume.
Dangcil claimed the jury selection system lacked transparency and failed to produce a random pool of jurors that reflected a cross section of the community, but the appeals court found that the process complied with the plan the judiciary unveiled in July for resuming trials amid the pandemic.
"The jury selection utilized here comported with statutory authority for pre-screening jurors; and it complied with Supreme Court orders approving an interim plan ... for resumption of jury trials, which reflected months of research and analysis by the judiciary, stakeholders, and others," the order said.
Superior Court Judge Robert M. Vinci, who denied Dangcil's bid to postpone the trial, "rendered a comprehensive and thoughtful oral opinion" on the matter on Sept. 28, the appeals court's order noted.
"Suffice to say, the judge found the jury selection process complied with the relevant statutes, the plan, and all pertinent statewide protocols and guidelines. He concluded that no evidence existed demonstrating exclusion of any group of people from the array," the order said.
"The judge found that jury management handled requests for disqualification in the same manner as it did before the pandemic. He concluded defense counsel's arguments were unfounded. Indeed, defense counsel had conceded the process itself was not defective," the order said.
Dangcil's trial is the first to be conducted in New Jersey under a hybrid system that combines remote jury selection with in-person proceedings. The trial will ultimately take place in a courtroom subject to social distancing measures.
His attorneys argued in a Sept. 18 brief that the process is "constitutionally deficient" and sought to have trial proceedings stayed in this matter until normal jury selection proceedings could resume. They feared the focus on remote and electronic procedures disproportionately filled the jury pool with younger, more economically secure individuals.
But Judge Vinci blasted those contentions as "conjecture" and "innuendo" stemming from inaccurate information.
A representative for the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General declined to comment. A representative for Dangcil didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Judges Douglas M. Fasciale, Jessica R. Mayer and Ronald Susswein sat on the panel for the Appellate Division.
The state is represented by Bergen County Assistant Prosecutor Demetra Maurice and Deputy Attorney General Mike Moran.
Dangcil is represented by James R. Lisa of the Law Office of James R. Lisa and Peter A. Michael of Peter Michael Law LLC.
The case is State of New Jersey v. Wildermar Dangcil, AM-000053-20T4, in the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division.
--Additional reporting by Bill Wichert. Editing by Daniel King.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
