The Law and Trial Strategy in New Jersey Courts

Previously I blogged about sex- and race-based peremptory strikes under the U.S. and New Jersey Constitution. Those posts and others have touched on the issue of state constitutions with respect to jurisdictional disputes between SCOTUS and the judiciaries of the 50 states with a focus on New Jersey. These topics can supply engaging reading. Additionally, they provide subject matter for interesting debate and discussion. Significantly, these judicial opinions are the words and actions of a co-equal branch of federal and state government, the court. Thus, they demonstrate how judges exercise power. But none of that is relevant to the law and trial strategy. Read more

J.E.B. v. Alabama: Sex-Based Peremptory Challenges

Previously I blogged about the constitutionality of race-based peremptory challenges during jury selection here and here. This post will discuss sex-based peremptory challenges in the case of J.E.B. v. Alabama.¹ Before opening statements at trial, the parties may remove jurors from the pool by challenge for cause or peremptory strike. For example, to remove a juror for cause, the challenging party must demonstrate the juror’s views would prevent or substantially impair that juror’s service in accordance with the court’s instructions and the juror’s oath. Notwithstanding J.E.B., Batson² or Gilmore³, however, peremptory challenges require neither explanation nor approval by the court. Read more

State of New Jersey v. Gilmore: The Peremptory Strike and the Right to an Impartial Jury

State of New Jersey v. Gilmore: Procedural History

An all-white jury of six men and six women convicted defendant, a black man, of three first-degree robberies of two Hispanic gas station attendants in Union, New Jersey. During jury selection, the white assistant prosecutor removed nine black prospective jurors by challenge for cause and peremptory strike. Defense counsel, a black man, moved for a mistrial because the prosecutor removed the black venirepersons based on their race. Nevertheless, the trial judge overruled defense counsel, relying on Swain v. Alabama ¹ and State v. Smith.²

Subsequently, the Appellate Division remanded for the prosecutor to state his reasons for excusing the black jurors. Read more

Batson v. Kentucky: Racial Discrimination In Court

Peremptory strikes in criminal jury trials have a long history. Unlike the challenge for cause, the peremptory challenge was exercised without a demonstration of cause by the defendant. Indeed, the peremptory challenge enabled the Crown to handpick juries dating to thirteenth-century England. Finding this obnoxious to their idea of justice, however, Parliament reserved the peremptory as a right for defendants only, and prohibited its use by the Crown. Additionally, American colonists continued the English practice regarding the peremptory challenges. As in England, criminal defendants were allotted peremptory challenges by statute, depending on the crime charged, while the challenges were Read more

SMOLENSKY LAW

NJ CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER | Call Now! (856) 812-0321

Category: Fourteenth Amendment

The Law and Trial Strategy in New Jersey Courts

J.E.B. v. Alabama: Sex-Based Peremptory Challenges

State of New Jersey v. Gilmore: The Peremptory Strike and the Right to an Impartial Jury

State of New Jersey v. Gilmore: Procedural History

Batson v. Kentucky: Racial Discrimination In Court