The fact that the public-trial right is subject to exceptions suggests that not every public-trial violation results in fundamental unfairness. Indeed, the Court has said that a public-trial violation is structural because of the “difficulty of assessing the effect of the error.” This portion of the holding sends a clear message to judges and prosecutors […]
Excluding the Public From Jury Selection (Part 2)
Generally, a constitutional error that did not contribute to the verdict obtained is deemed harmless, which means the defendant is not entitled to reversal. However, a structural error, which affects the framework within which the trial proceeds defies harmless error analysis. Thus, when a structural error is objected to and then raised on direct review, […]
Excluding the Public From Jury Selection (Part 1)
On June 22, 2017, the United State Supreme Court decided the case of Kentel Weaver v. Massachusetts. When petitioner was tried in a state trial court, the courtroom could not accommodate all the potential jurors. As a result, for two days of jury selection, an officer of the court excluded from the courtroom any member […]
Judges and Official Misconduct (Part 6)
N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2b criminalizes only the omissions of “a judge who consciously refrains from performing an official non-discretionary duty, which duty is imposed upon him by law or which is clearly inherent in the nature of his office. In addition, the public servant must know of the existence of such non-discretionary duty to act.” The State […]
Judges and Official Misconduct (Part 5)
Unequivocally, “it is the judge’s obligation to see that justice is done in every case that comes before him or her.” A judge must live by this humble maxim, one that, as most sitting judges would agree, is more easily stated than realized. The Code codifies this ideal and provides guidance for the conduct of […]
Judges and Official Misconduct (Part 4)
In Garson, the court reversed the dismissal of an indictment charging the defendant judge with violating New York Penal Law § 200.25, receiving a reward for official misconduct by violating his duty as a public servant, but affirmed dismissal of the indictment charging a violation of § 195.02(2). 848 N.E.2d at 1265. In that case, […]
Judges and Official Misconduct (Part 3)
The State next turns to Canons One and Two of the Code for support. Canon One provides, “An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice. A judge therefore shall uphold and should promote the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Canon Two states, “[a] judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety […]
Judges and Official Misconduct (Part 2)
The same principle is at the core of State v. Weleck, another pre-Code case. There, the defendant, a borough attorney, was charged with extorting payments from a citizen in return for agreeing to use his influence to secure the passage of a favorable zoning amendment. Once again, the Court held that some duties are inherent […]
Judges and Official Misconduct (Part 1)
On September 11, 2017, a three-judge appellate panel decided the case of State v. Carlia Brady. The principle issue in the case is whether a Superior Court judge be found guilty of criminal official misconduct based on a failure to enforce an arrest warrant for her boyfriend when she neglected to notify police that the […]
Insider Trading & Jury Inferences: Part 2
While Salman’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit was pending, the Second Circuit decided that Dirks does not permit a fact finder to infer a personal benefit to the tipper from a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend, unless there is “proof of a meaningfully close personal relationship” between tipper and tippee […]
