concluding constitutional right to impartial jury "is entitled to the most zealous protection in the context of a criminal prosecution in which the defendant faces the death penalty"
Summary of this case from State v. PapasavvasDecided February 3, 1983.
Certification to the Superior Court, Law Division is granted.
concluding constitutional right to impartial jury "is entitled to the most zealous protection in the context of a criminal prosecution in which the defendant faces the death penalty"
Summary of this case from State v. Papasavvasadopting seven factors and adding three more
Summary of this case from Gannon v. Staterecognizing that pretrial proceedings that are open to public support "appearance of fairness" and "encourage a general appreciation of the administration of criminal justice"
Summary of this case from State v. Blackmonexplaining that "securing and preservation of an impartial jury goes to the very essence of a fair trial"
Summary of this case from State v. Loftinstating that trial courts must take extra care in capital cases to counteract juror exposure to pretrial publicity
Summary of this case from State v. Marshallopening pretrial criminal proceedings to the public and the press
Summary of this case from Hammock by Hammock v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc.stating that court has an obligation "to preserve the integrity of the jury and minimize the danger that prejudice will infiltrate the adjudicatory process"
Summary of this case from State v. MejiaIn Williams II, supra, 113 N.J. 393, 550 A.2d 1172, the Court suggested that questioning of potential jurors on specific aggravating factors may be required.
Summary of this case from State v. MartiniIn Williams II, supra, we found that the trial court had abused its discretion when it denied defense counsel's request to ask prospective jurors whether they automatically would impose the death penalty on defendants who had committed murder during a rape.
Summary of this case from State v. MartiniIn Williams II, we recognized that the brutality of a rape and murder could blind venirepersons in the performance of their duties as jurors.
Summary of this case from State v. MartiniIn State v. Williams, 93 N.J. 39, 459 A.2d 641 (1983), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution provided the public and press a "protectible constitutional interest in access to all pretrial proceedings in the prosecution of a criminal case," 93 N.J. at 48, 51-57, 459 A.2d at 645, 647-50.
Summary of this case from Ex Parte Consolidated Pub. Co., Inc.In Williams II, supra, 113 N.J. at 446-54, 550 A.2d 1172, the prosecutor pursued a pattern of commentary on the virtue of the victim, calling her "[b]right, beautiful, religious, a member of her church choir," and discussing what had been her future marriage plans.
Summary of this case from State v. ErazoIn Williams II, supra, the Court held that the trial court's failure to conduct a searching voir dire, combined with the failure to excuse for cause a juror who clearly should have been excused, required reversal of defendant's conviction and sentence.
Summary of this case from State v. ErazoIn Williams II, the defendant argued that the trial court had abused its discretion in failing to ask prospective jurors who favored the death penalty whether they would automatically favor death if the defendant had committed murder and rape.
Summary of this case from State v. ErazoIn Williams II, we recognized that the brutality of a rape and murder could blind venirepersons in the performance of their duties as jurors.
Summary of this case from State v. ErazoIn State v. Williams, 93 N.J. 39, 459 A.2d 641 (1983), we analyzed the strength of that interest in the context of criminal pretrial proceedings.
Summary of this case from Matter of Commitment of Edward SIn State v. Williams, 93 N.J. 39, 70-71, 459 A.2d 641 (1983), the Court established a balancing rule to address the conflict between the rights of the public to open criminal court proceedings and the rights of a defendant to a fair trial, but the Court also acknowledged the issue may arise in "a wide, almost limitless variety of situations," and it urged further "continuing study to be undertaken" by the Court's rule committees in devising appropriate procedures.
Summary of this case from State v. Millerreferring to State v. Hunt, 91 N.J. 338, 358-68, 450 A.2d 952 (Handler, J., concurring)
Summary of this case from State v. Rodrigueznoting that since the adoption of the modern State Constitution in 1947, "the rules governing the New Jersey courts have endorsed a strong and consistent policy in favor of open judicial proceedings"
Summary of this case from Smith v. SmithFull title:STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES J. KOEDATICH
Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey
Date published: Feb 3, 1983
Proportionality review will take place in later proceedings. Because in cases involving the death penalty a…
State v. PapasavvasB. State v. Williams, 93 N.J. 39, 459 A.2d 641 (1953) (Williams I), and State v. Williams, 113 N.J. 393, 550…