The practice of running background checks on prospective jurors raises a question of first impression for the Court. Today, the State alone has the ability to unilaterally conduct such checks. The State represents that it is extremely rare for it to conduct background checks on prospective jurors. It relies on regulations promulgated by the Department of Law and Public Safety as the source of its authority. The Court does not question the State’s good-faith belief that it had the authority to run the background check it conducted in this case. But administrative regulations generally may not govern the intricacies of jury selection any more than they could control other aspects of a trial. New Jersey case law on the issue is sparse, and other jurisdictions have reached varied conclusions on the subject.
Here, the State likely argued that the running of a background check is a race-neutral action. Moreover, the issue can be turned on its head if the Court were implying that there are racial undertones to running a criminal background check, i.e. that prospective jurors of color are more likely to have criminal histories. The counter to that argument is that it is statistically true, but only due to inequalities in our justice system that lead similarly-situated people of color to be charged with offenses that would not apply to whites.