Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
jail door

In State v. Miller, 216 N.J. 40 (2013), Associate Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court Barry Albin lamented the plight of “an impoverished defendant, [that] was treated as just another fungible item to be shuffled along on a criminal-justice conveyor belt.” Justice Albin continued, “Miller is more than another dispositional entry on a docket sheet, more than another statistic in some inexorable, impersonal process that knows no delays for justice.” Justice Albin’s cautionary words ring true once again today as our Grand Jury system has been relegated to nothing more than a virtual intake portal for criminal cases, devoid of the constitutional protections that are supposed to be afforded to defendants, in the name of expedience. By judicial order, and without the legislative action that has directed all other aspects of the Grand Jury system, individual rights have sustained a major setback at a time when casting light upon the historical inequities in our criminal justice system is supposed to be directing progress.  New Jersey is heading backwards, fast.

Article I, Section 8 of the 1947 New Jersey State Constitution guarantees that “[n]o person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on the presentment or indictment of a grand jury[.]” Building upon that fundamental right, the Legislature has prescribed a statutory framework for virtually every conceivable facet of our Grand Jury system. Absent from that statutory framework is a means by which the State can “phone in” its constitutional duty from behind a keyboard and a computer screen. In State v. Hogan, 144 N.J. 216 (1996), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that prosecutors have a duty to present clearly exculpatory evidence to a Grand Jury when such evidence directly negates guilt. The failure to do so by the State can lead to the dismissal of an indictment. Yet, as Grand Juries go virtual, defendants’ rights are being taken away, not added.

New Jersey’s foray into virtual Grand Juries, now in full swing, overlooks the rights of the accused to a fair and just process. There are a number of characteristics of virtual Grand Juries that render them something less than what New Jersey’s constitutional framers contemplated, the Legislature has implemented, and the New Jersey Supreme Court has concluded is supposed to represent something more than a mere rubber stamp for prosecutorial action.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Law Firms Mentioned

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

Daily Decision Service Alert - E-mail editionBook

Daily Decision Service E-mail Edition

Get More Information

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.