On August 3, 2026, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Atlantic County case of State v. Thomas Fox. The principal issue concerned whether the jury should have been given the playback of trial testimony that it requested.
Judge Jacobs wrote for the Appellate Division in relevant part: On February 14, 2018, an officer with the Galloway Township Police Department pulled over Thomas Fox, Jr.’s pickup truck. Fox could not produce a valid driver’s license. A database search revealed his license was suspended due to at least two prior DUI convictions.
In July 2023, an Atlantic County grand jury issued a two-count indictment charging Fox with fourth-degree operating a motor vehicle during a period of license suspension. A jury trial was held in April 2024 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County.
Defendant appeals from convictions for fourth-degree operating a motor vehicle during a period of license suspension following a jury trial in Atlantic County. During deliberations, the jury requested a playback of trial testimony, but the trial judge instructed such a request must be unanimous among jurors before it would be considered. Following this instruction, the jury did not successfully request the playback. At 4:47 p.m. that same day, the jury returned a guilty verdict on both fourth-degree counts.
The Appellate Division held the trial judge misapplied her discretion by imposing a unanimity requirement, noting that New Jersey precedent does not support such a condition and that playback requests ordinarily should be granted absent unusual circumstances. The court found the error was not harmless, as it had the clear capacity to produce an unjust result by potentially depriving a single juror of clarification. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant’s convictions and sentence and remanded for a new trial. The court also outlined proper procedures for responding to jury questions, emphasizing transparency and consultation with counsel.
Prosecuting cases like this is usually considered easy, “like shooting fish in a barrel.” A police officer generally just has to testify that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle on the day in question. Our evidence rules permit the introduction of a certified conviction for a DWI and the related suspension period to be introduced into evidence. The sentence requires a mandatory 180 days in jail with a maximum penalty of 18 months in prison.
As a practical matter, most defendants sentenced to 180 days in a county jail end up serving close to 180 days. This is because there is no effective mechanism for challenging parole denial at the county jail level. Thus, most inmates tend to “max out” on their county jail sentences. Most state prison inmates are released on a fourth-degree sentence without serving much more than 180 days. Thus, the principal motivation for not demanding a jury trial in a case like this is based on the amount of time and work involved with a jury trial. Kudos to Thomas Fox’s defense attorney for putting in the time and work.
A likely reason that the trial judge did not grant the playback request was that she thought the evidence was overwhelming and felt the playback would be a waste of time. The jury would have likely had to come back for another day if the playback occurred since it reached its verdict right before courthouses typically close.
The decision serves as an important safeguard for the jury deliberation process, ensuring individual jurors can request to review evidence without being blocked by a majority or requiring absolute consensus just to hear trial testimony repeated.
