judge of possible bias despite the fact that the juror at
issue did not participate in the ultimate deliberation.
R. 3:6-2 provides that any challenges to the array or
to individual grand jurors must be made no later than the
arraignment/status conference, but for good cause shown
may be made via motion at any time. In State v. Long, 198
N.J. Super. 32, 37-38 (App. Div. 1984), the court held
that the trial court in a capital case did not abuse its
discretion in permitting defendant to challenge the
grand jury array out of time where materials presented at
the motion hearing were sufficient to support
enlargement of the time period within which
constitutional attacks could be made.
III. SECRECY AND DISCOVERY (See also,
DISCOVERY, this Digest and RELEASE OF
GRAND JURY MATERIALS in the Prosecutors’
Grand Jury Manual)
The secrecy mandates of grand jury proceedings are
firmly rooted in our common law and are reflected in the
New Jersey Court Rules. R. 3:6-6; R. 3:6-7; see also
United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681-
83 (1958); State v. Doliner, 96 N.J. 236, 246-47 (1984).
The rationale behind the secrecy policy is that it prevents
potential indictees from escaping, facilitates free and
open deliberation by the grand jurors, prevents potential
indictees and people acting on their behalf from
communicating and interfering with the grand jurors,
encourages free and untrammeled disclosure by people
with information regarding criminal activity, prevents
subornation of perjury or witness tampering with those
who appear before the grand jury and subsequently
testify at trial, and protects accused yet innocent people
who are eventually exonerated from disclosure of the fact
that they have been under investigation. State v. Doliner,
96 N.J. at 247; In re Allegations of Official Misconduct,
233 N.J. Super. 426, 430-31 (App. Div. 1989).
However, the reasons for secrecy must be weighed against
defendant’s demonstrated need for discovery. State v.
CPS Chemical Co., Inc., 198 N.J. Super. 236, 243-45
(App. Div.), leave to appeal denied, 105 N.J. 502 (1985).
While the grand jury is in session, the only people
who may be present are the jurors, the prosecutor, the
clerk, the witness under examination, the stenographer or
court reporter, and an interpreter if needed. R. 3:6-6(a).
All persons other than witnesses permitted to be present
must take an oath of secrecy prior to admission. R. 3:6-
- During deliberations, the only people who may be
present are the jurors, the prosecutor, the clerk, and the
stenographer or court reporter, but the jurors may
request the prosecutor, the court reporter, and the clerk
to leave. R. 3:6-6(a).Defendant may receive a transcript of the grand jury
proceedings after an indictment has been returned.
However, the prosecutor may move for a protective order
pursuant to R. 3:13-3(f) to preclude defendant’s access to
the transcript. R. 3:6-6(b).The standard for disclosure of grand jury materials to
government departments for use in a civil prosecution
against the grand jury target is a strong showing of
particularized need that outweighs the public interest in
maintaining grand jury secrecy. State v. Doliner, 96 N.J.
at 241. The Doliner standard is also to be used in
reviewing a criminal defendant’s motion for discovery of
grand jury materials of another matter. State v. CPS
Chemical Co., Inc., 198 N.J. Super. at 241-45. A deputy
attorney general who presents an antitrust matter to a
grand jury may not have continued access to those grand
jury materials for purposes of litigating a civil antitrust
matter without first obtaining a court order upon a
showing of a particularized need. In deciding that
question, the court may inquire as to whether there has
been any evidence of grand jury abuse. State v. Arace
Bros., 230 N.J. Super. 22, 32-36 (App. Div. 1989).Despite confidentiality of tax returns, the Division of
Taxation may disclose tax returns to the Attorney General
for criminal prosecution relating to violations of tax law.
State v. Pescatore, 213 N.J. Super. 22, 30 (App. Div.),
aff’d, 105 N.J. 441 (1987).Failure to object to defects in grand jury proceedings
precluded reversal of defendant’s conviction on the
ground that the complaining witness should not have
been used as interpreter for grand jury witnesses whose
testimony was not merely cumulative. The State had
made no discernible attempt to demonstrate that no
disinterested person was available to translate. State v.
Lee, 211 N.J. Super. 590, 594-00 (App. Div. 1986).In Grill v. City of Newark, 311 N.J. Super. 149, 158-
62 (Law Div. 1997), the court held that a police director
permissibly used grand jury materials, for which no court
order had been issued permitting disclosure, to
determine whether to file disciplinary charges against
indicted police officers.Disclosure of grand jury transcripts subject to a
disclosure order was proper under the circumstances
where the parties met the Doliner requirements in seeking