State v. Edwin Andujar (084167) (Essex County & Statewide)
volume_reporter_page_placeholder (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party seeking to conduct a criminal history check on a prospective juror through a government database available only to one side must present a reasonable, individualized, good-faith basis for the request and obtain judicial permission. Moreover, under the New Jersey Constitution, implicit or unconscious racial bias in jury selection violates a defendant's right to a fair trial, extending the Gilmore analysis beyond purposeful discrimination.
Facts:
- Edwin Andujar was accused of killing his roommate by stabbing him, which he claimed was in self-defense during a struggle.
- During jury selection, prospective juror F.G., a Black male from Newark, was questioned extensively about his connections to people accused of crimes or who were crime victims.
- F.G. volunteered that he had two cousins in law enforcement, knew "a host of people" (5-6 close friends) accused of crimes (including CDS and gun possession, using terms like "trigger lock"), and knew three crime victims (two murdered cousins, one robbed friend).
- Despite his background, F.G. consistently maintained that he could be a fair and impartial juror and believed the criminal justice system was fair.
- The State challenged F.G. for cause, citing his background, associations, and use of criminal justice "lingo," arguing it questioned his respect for the criminal justice system and that he was not forthcoming.
- The trial court denied the State's challenge for cause, explicitly finding that F.G. expressed no bias and would make a fair and impartial juror.
- After the trial court's ruling, the prosecution unilaterally ran a criminal history check only on F.G., which revealed two prior arrests that did not result in conviction and one outstanding municipal court warrant for simple assault.
- The State then took steps to arrange F.G.'s arrest before jury selection resumed and renewed its application to remove him for cause, which defense counsel did not oppose at that specific moment due to the impending arrest.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury convicted Edwin Andujar of first-degree murder and two weapons offenses, and he was sentenced to forty-five years in prison.
- Edwin Andujar appealed his conviction, arguing he was denied the right to a fair trial because racial discrimination infected the jury selection process.
- The Appellate Division reversed Andujar's conviction and remanded the matter for a new trial.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted the State's petition for certification.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the State's unilateral criminal history check on a prospective juror and subsequent actions, based on implicit or unconscious bias, violate the defendant's right to a fair trial under the New Jersey Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rabner
Yes, the State's actions concerning F.G. violated Edwin Andujar's right to a fair trial under the State Constitution. The Court clarified that courts, not parties, oversee jury selection and established a new framework for conducting criminal history checks: any party seeking such a check through a government database available only to one side must present a reasonable, individualized, good-faith basis for the request and obtain permission from the trial judge. The results must then be shared with both parties and the court, and the juror given an opportunity to respond. The Court found that the State's actions in this case did not meet this new standard, as there was no justification for selectively focusing on and investigating only F.G.'s criminal record. Based on the circumstances, the Court inferred that F.G.'s removal stemmed from implicit or unconscious bias on the part of the State, which, like purposeful discrimination, violates a defendant’s right to a fair trial under the New Jersey Constitution, thereby extending the Gilmore analysis. The Court reasoned that F.G.'s background (growing up in a high-crime area, knowing individuals involved in crime, understanding criminal justice terms) did not disqualify him and that the State's justification for the check reflected impermissible stereotypes. Furthermore, the background check itself did not uncover information that statutorily disqualified F.G. from jury service, yet his arrest was set in motion, effectively circumventing the Batson/Gilmore framework. Despite defense counsel's less precise objection at the time, the extensive record provides sufficient evidence of implicit bias to warrant reversal of the conviction. The Court also called for a Judicial Conference on Jury Selection to examine and recommend improvements to the jury selection process, particularly concerning the high number of peremptory challenges in New Jersey and their potential for discrimination.
Analysis:
This case significantly alters jury selection procedures by imposing strict judicial oversight on criminal history checks for prospective jurors, ensuring an even playing field and preventing unilateral, potentially discriminatory investigations by prosecutors. Crucially, the decision expands the Gilmore framework under the New Jersey Constitution to explicitly recognize and condemn implicit or unconscious bias in jury selection, thereby addressing subtle forms of discrimination that may not be purposeful but still violate a defendant's right to an impartial jury. This ruling underscores the judiciary's proactive role in safeguarding fair trial rights and serves as a powerful precedent for scrutinizing biases in the jury selection process, including the potential for peremptory challenges to be used discriminatorily.
