GRAND GRAND GRAND GRAND GRAND JURYJURYJURYJURYJURY (See also, INDICTMENT,
this Digest)
I. GENERALLY
R. 3:6-1 requires the assignment judge of each
county to order and organize one or more grand juries for
each county not exceeding twenty-three members each.
R. 3:6-3 requires the judge to furnish promptly a
written copy of the charge to each grand juror. The
routine charge states that the burden of proof required for
an indictment is “evidence, which if unexplained or
uncontradicted, would carry the case to a jury and justify
the conviction of the accused.” Trap Rock Industries Inc.
v. Kohl, 59 N.J. 471, cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1065 (1972).
In charging a grand jury under R. 3:6-3, the court
should charge the jurors that those who join in
indictment must have been present and have heard or
otherwise have informed themselves of the evidence
presented at each session. State v. Del Fino, 100 N.J. 154
(1985); see also State v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 222 N.J. Super.
343 (App. Div. 1988). Presentment can be made only
upon the concurrence of twelve or more grand jurors, and
the clerk’s administrative error in failing to record that
twelve or more were present at all the sessions to hear
entire presentation of the evidence did not constitute
grand jury misconduct rising to the level that would
imperil fundamental fairness in violation of N.J. Const.
art. 1, ¶ 8. R. 3:6-9(a); State v. Del Fino, 100 N.J. at 161-
62.
Grand jury clerk’s practice of recording “12 plus”
votes in favor of indictment rather than recording the
votes of individual grand jurors is disapproved of. Id. at
165.
R. 3:6-4 requires the judge to appoint one juror as
foreperson, who will administer oaths and endorse all
indictments, and another as deputy foreperson who will
act as foreperson in the foreperson’s absence.
II. CHALLENGES TO THE ARRAY AND TO
INDIVIDUAL JURORS (See also, JURY, this
Digest)
R.. 3:6-2 provides that the prosecutor or defendant
may challenge the array of the grand jury on the ground
that it was improperly selected and may challenge an
individual juror on the ground that he or she is not legally
qualified. The Rule also provides that if the challenge is
made subsequent to indictment, it may be the basis of a
motion to dismiss the indictment. R. 3:6-3 provides that
the assignment judge may, when appropriate, ask
potential jurors about their background so as to reveal
possible bias or interest in a particular matter which
would justify excusal.There is no constitutional prohibition to the exercise
of discretion in the selection of grand jurors so long as the
process does not impermissibly discriminate by
arbitrarily excluding identifiable groups. See State v.
Rochester, 54 N.J. 85, 89 (1969). In New Jersey however,
by statute, jurors are selected randomly. The names of
people eligible for jury service are placed on one list
compiled from a merger of lists of registered voters,
licensed drivers, filers of state gross income tax returns,
and filers of homestead rebate application forms.
N.J.S.A. 2B:20-2. The merger of the different lists into
the single juror source list must include a reasonable
attempt to eliminate a duplication of names. Id. The
drawing of the names from the juror source list of people
to be summoned for grand jury service must be random.
N.J.S.A. 2B:20-4.Defendants may challenge the array or composition
of the grand jury under either the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause or the Sixth
Amendment’s guarantee that grand jurors be drawn from
a jury pool that represents a “fair cross-section” of the
community. To make out a prima facie case under the
equal protection clause, defendant must 1) identify a
constitutionally cognizable group; 2) prove “substantial
underrepresentation” over a significant period of time;
and 3) show discriminatory purpose either by a statistical
showing or by demonstrating the use of racially non-
neutral selection procedures. Castaneda v. Partida, 430
U.S. 482, 494 (1977); State v. Dixon, 125 N.J. 223, 232
(1991); State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123, 215-16 (1987).
To make out a prima facie case under the Sixth
Amendment, defendant must 1) identify a constitution-
ally cognizable group; 2) show that the representation of
the particular group is not “fair and reasonable” over a
period of time; and 3) show that the underrepresentation
was due to systematic exclusion. Duren v. Missouri, 439
U.S. 357, 364 (1979); State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. at 216-
16.Full-time college students and people of the clergy
do not form cognizable groups for the purpose of
determining systematic exclusion. State v. Butler, 155
N.J. Super. 270, 271-72 (App. Div. 1978).
Additionally, young people, poor people, and people
from a particular municipality do not form a cognizable