In Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (1986), the
Equal Protection Clause was not offended by the
deployment of uniformed troopers in the courtroom
during defendant’s trial by arbitrarily discriminating
against those not on bail, since the deployment was
intimately related to the State’s interest in maintaining
custody during the proceedings, which could not
otherwise be insured.
State v. Fernandez, 209 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div.
1986), held denial of an opportunity to earn
commutation credits to a defendant sentenced to an
indeterminate term under the pre-Code Sex Offender Act
was not a denial of equal protection. Defendant did not
establish that similarly situated individuals were being
treated dissimilarly since individuals serving determinate
terms under the Code were a different class from
defendant. Moreover, even if defendant had established
a prima facie case of dissimilar treatment, such difference
was reasonably related to the State’s interest in
preventing release of individuals in defendant’s situation
prior to satisfactory rehabilitation.
According to State v. Moore, 192 N.J. Super. 437
(App. Div. 1983), certif. denied, 96 N.J. 271 (1984),
imposing criminal sanctions on NGIs (defendants not
guilty by reason of insanity) for an unauthorized
departure from detention does not violate defendant’s
equal protection right. N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5a. The court
ruled that equal protection does not require that all
persons be treated identically, and that the criminal
statute justifiably applied different treatment for civil
committees, as opposed to insanity acquitees with a
history of dangerous conduct.
Abramowitz v. Kimmelman, 200 N.J. Super. 303
(Law Div. 1984), concluded an amendment to the
State’s Sunday closing law, N.J.S.A. 2A:171-5.8,
allowing large cities to decide whether to permit Sunday
sales in counties with blue laws, did not violate the equal
protection rights of residents of other, smaller
municipalities in the same county. Applying
conventional equal protection analysis, the court initially
found that government regulation of Sunday sales has
long been recognized. It next determined that the special
classification (this case involved the city of Jersey City,
which contains about 40% of Hudson County’s
population) was rationally related to a legitimate
government objective of permitting citizens of
economically troubled urban centers to choose
themselves whether to have Sunday sales as a means of
improving their economy. Finally, the court rejected the
contention that the amendment diluted the voting rights
of non-Jersey City residents in Hudson County, since all
county residents still could vote in a countywide
referendum concerning Sunday openings.State v. Musto, 187 N.J. Super. 264 (Law Div. 1982),
aff’d 188 N.J. Super. 106 (App. Div. 1983), upheld the
public office forfeiture statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2, as not
violating the federal constitution’s equal protection
guarantee. Automatic disqualification from public office,
for those convicted of offenses “involving or touching”
their public office, represents a proper restriction
reasonably related to legitimate government interests, as
well as being an appropriate penal measure.B. Jury Selection- Use of Peremptory Challenges
United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 120 S.Ct. 774
(2000). Under the equal protection clause, a defendant
may not exercise a peremptory challenge to remove a
potential juror solely on the basis of the juror’s gender,
ethnic origin, or race. Defendant’s due process rights
were not violated when he exercised peremptory
challenge to remove a potential juror after the district
court erroneously refused to dismiss the potential juror
for cause. Defendant received precisely what federal law
provided when he was accorded the exact number of
challenges allowed in his case under rule governing
peremptory challenges. Although the peremptory
challenge plays an important role in reinforcing a
defendant’s constitutional right to trial by an impartial
jury, such challenges are auxiliary; unlike the right to an
impartial jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment,
peremptory challenges are not of federal constitutional
dimension.In State v. Clark, 324 N.J. Super. 558 (App. Div.
1999), certif. denied, 163 N.J. 10 (2000), a prosecutor
did not exercise peremptory challenge in discriminatory
manner, in violation of defendants’ rights to equal
protection and to jury drawn from representative cross-
section of community, when prosecutor exercised
peremptory challenge against black prospective juror on
basis that juror refused to make eye contact, that juror
seemed angry, and that juror had two sons and might
thus relate too much to defendants as her sons.According to J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S.
127 (1994), whether trial is criminal or civil, potential
jurors, as well as litigants, have equal protection right to
jury selection procedures that are free from group
stereotypes rooted in and reflective of historical