Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Appellate newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (May 7, 2021, 6:08 PM EDT) -- The New Jersey Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether virtual jury selection is unconstitutional amid the COVID-19 pandemic, setting accelerated briefing in a case against a man who went to trial last fall for attempted arson.
The court said it would review the case of Wildemar Dangcil, whose counsel objected to a Bergen County jury selection process that took place remotely in October before an in-person trial began. It was not immediately clear how that trial turned out, but the state's high court refused at that time to halt it to take up the issue.
Dangcil's lawyers argued in October that the online venire distorted the jury pool, yielding disproportionately young and wealthy potential jurors.
"Defendant's motion for direct certification is granted, limited to defendant's challenge to the hybrid virtual/in-person jury selection procedure," the court said Friday. "All remaining issues are severed and shall proceed in the Superior Court, Appellate Division in the ordinary course."
The high court wants to hear the case quickly, asking Dangcil's team to file briefing by May 17 and the state attorney general to respond by May 27. Oral arguments are set for June 29.
With its decision Friday to take the case, the New Jersey Supreme Court becomes the latest appellate panel nationwide to grapple with novel legal questions regarding the use of virtual proceedings in criminal matters during the pandemic. In one recent example, Massachusetts' top court held Wednesday that evidentiary hearings can be conducted by Zoom without violating a criminal defendant's state and constitutional rights.
Dangcil's original emergency challenge last fall put the trial on hold for several weeks, until it was denied regarding the emergency basis. But the court said he could try again after the trial.
Dangcil was the first defendant in New Jersey to undergo a hybrid proceeding combining remote jury selection with an in-person trial.
In denying Dangcil's bid last fall to halt the trial, Superior Court Judge Robert Vinci on Sept. 28 said his arguments were based on "nothing more than conjecture and innuendo spun from inaccurate information and rumors conveyed to the defense counsel."
Representatives for Dangcil and the state were not immediately available for comment.
The state is represented by Bergen County Assistant Prosecutor Demetra Maurice and Deputy Attorney General Mike Moran.
Dangcil is represented by Brian Neary.
The case is State of New Jersey v. Wildemar A. Dangcil, case number 084990, in the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey.
--Additional reporting by Bill Wichert. Editing by Orlando Lorenzo.
Correction: The counsel listing was inaccurate. The error has been corrected.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
