By Bill Wichert

Law360 (October 19, 2020, 4:00 PM EDT ) The New Jersey Supreme Court has refused to further delay a criminal trial to evaluate defense objections to a hybrid system of selecting juries via remote and in-person proceedings amid the COVID-19 pandemic, putting off any high court review until afterward.

In an order issued Friday, the justices denied a bid from Wildemar Dangcil to pause his trial in an attempted arson case while the court considers a appellate opinion that upheld a ruling rejecting his concerns about the jury selection procedures, noting "the jury has been on hold for several weeks during the pendency of defendant's challenge."

The Supreme Court concluded that Dangcil "has not made a sufficient showing that entitles him to emergent relief," the order said.

"In light of the detailed findings by both the trial court and the Appellate Division, defendant's application seeking additional, emergent review during the pendency of the trial is denied," the order said.

But the court said it "recognizes the importance of the issue raised by defense counsel," and said Dangcil could file "a motion for direct certification of the issue to the court post-trial."

"The court would entertain such an application on an expedited basis together with a request to sever any appeal as to the jury selection process from any appeal on other issues raised in direct appeal, which issues could be considered by the Appellate Division in the ordinary course," according to the order.

The trial was scheduled to resume Monday before a panel of 16 jurors in Bergen County Superior Court, the order said.

Dangcil's trial represents the first jury trial to be conducted in New Jersey under a hybrid system that combines remote jury selection with in-person proceedings. The trial is slated to take place in a courtroom with social distancing measures.

His lawyers have contended that the jury selection procedures improperly failed to produce a random pool of jurors, arguing in a trial court brief that the county's "focus on remote and electronic procedures substantially increases the likelihood that the jury pool will consist of individuals who are both younger in age and more economically secure."

In denying Dangcil's bid to halt the trial, however, Superior Court Judge Robert M. Vinci on Sept. 28 rejected such arguments, saying they are based on "nothing more than conjecture and innuendo spun from inaccurate information and rumors conveyed to the defense counsel."

The judge concluded that "the selection process was fair and did not result in a pool of jurors that was materially different than the pre-COVID-19 selection process would have produced."

"There's absolutely no support for defendant's claim that any group was excluded, much less that an entire socio-economic group was excluded," Judge Vinci said.

The Appellate Division later agreed to review the judge's ruling and stayed the trial. In an Oct. 12 order, an appellate panel affirmed Judge Vinci's decision and lifted the stay.

The panel noted that, even amid the coronavirus outbreak, "533 of the 800 jurors (or sixty-six percent), responded to the summons, and the juror yield for this pool in defendant's case was 22.38 percent, similar to the average pre-pandemic yield of 28.37 percent."

"In this case, there has been no showing, technical or otherwise, to rebut the presumption of validity, or any evidence to suggest that the selection was non-random or that any constitutionally cognizable group was excluded from the array," the panel said.

Counsel for Dangcil did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

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. Wildemar A. Dangcil, case number 084990, in the New Jersey Supreme Court.

--Editing by Abbie Sarfo.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.