Stuart Rabner

Last June marked the end of Stuart Rabner's 10th year as chief justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court. He was nominated by Gov. Corzine on June 4, 2007, confirmed and sworn in by the end of the month. Rabner, a Democrat, was reappointed by Gov. Christie, a Republican, for tenure and confirmed in June 2014.

Rabner graduated from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, attended Harvard Law School, from which he graduated in 1985, and clerked for U.S. District Judge Dickinson Debevoise. Starting in 1986, he spent more than 20 years in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey, which included a stint as chief of the Criminal Division and as first assistant US attorney, prior to becoming counsel to Gov. Corzine in January 2006 and attorney general of New Jersey later that year.

Rabner's experience proved significant in writing a number of important criminal law opinions that have had great practical significance in the trial of New Jersey cases and, as a result of their precedential value, throughout the nation. They include State v. Henderson, where the reliability of eyewitness testimony was in issue. The court remanded the case to a retired Superior Court judge sitting as a standing master and asked that he examine existing guidelines for processing and weighing eyewitness testimony. Using the master's findings, the court revised the legal standard for assessing eyewitness identification evidence because it (1) does not offer an adequate measure of reliability, (2) does not sufficiently deter inappropriate police conduct, and (3) relies too heavily on the jury's ability to evaluate identification evidence.

The chief's opinion in State v. Earls recognized the evolving use of cell phones and the right to privacy in such use. The court held that, generally, a warrant is required to obtain information about use and location of cell phones. The chief's opinion in State v. Slater announced the present test related to withdrawal of a guilty plea. And in North Jersey Media Group v. Lyndhurst, he wrote the court's opinion that required police to disclose a dashcam video of a fatal shooting.

Among his other notable opinions is one providing a test for awarding counsel fees in successful OPRA cases (Mason v. Hoboken), and another holding that the state electorate cannot recall a U.S. senator (The Committee to Recall Menendez v. Wells). He added to our jurisprudence a holding determining who is a journalist or who is entitled to the newsperson's privilege on the internet (Too Much Media v. Hale); and that a homeowners' association cannot prohibit a resident from posting political signs or distributing information such as HOA campaign literature on the premises (Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners Ass'n v. Khan and Dubliner v. 2000 Linwood Ave. Owners Inc.). Probably the most well-known of his opinions is Garden State Equality v. Dow, which denied a stay on the implementation of the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry. He has also assigned important opinions to the associate justices who have developed reputations as outstanding jurists.

A good chief justice is one who helps develop consensus on issues in decision-making but also helps to reform a system in need of change. Using the New Jersey Supreme Court's unique and plenary power over administration of the judiciary and rule-making power over practice and procedure in the courts, Chief Justice Rabner has led the court in developing a protocol for handling complex business cases, providing counsel to veterans in need of legal counsel, and upgrading the judiciary's use of technology, including electronic filing. He personally chaired a committee that resulted in recommending changes to the criminal justice system, leading to a constitutional amendment and statutory changes so that those with low risk of recidivism or flight are released from pretrial detention sooner, while high risk offenders may be detained pretrial. The chief also wrote the opinions regarding discovery and the testimony necessary to establish the right to pretrial detention of defendants. (State v. Robinson and State v. Ingram).

In his role as administrator in chief, the chief has not yet impacted the process sufficiently to bring down the cost of civil litigation. Hopefully, he will instill in the judges he leads a mindset to consider the economic impact of all their actions or inactions on the cost of litigation. It is time to reassess all our litigation processes for their cost-effectiveness without sacrificing the quality of justice. Establishing and driving a judicial culture aggressively looking for ways to trim costs are core functions of judicial leadership. Setting in motion protocols that require lawyers to practice in such a cost-saving culture would have enormous and lasting social value.

In 2009 we called upon the court to reconvene Chief Justice Wilentz's multi-disciplined Committee on Efficiency to examine bottom-up the streamlining of all aspects of the litigation process. The last such examination was conducted in 1981, in the final report of the Supreme Court Committee on Efficiency in the Operation of the Courts of New Jersey. We need to be at a place where lawyers who profit from our system's inefficiencies are not rewarded, and where clients who are paying for these inefficiencies get the relief to which they are entitled.

In his first 10 years of service, Stuart Rabner's quiet and respectful demeanor, winning personality and formidable intellect, have earned the well-deserved respect of the bench and bar. He has 13 more years to serve until he reaches his mandatory retirement date on June 30, 2030. After seven more years of service, Chief Justice Rabner will become the longest serving chief justice of the eight chief justices serving under the 1948 state constitution. We wish him well in meeting the challenges of the future.

Stuart Rabner

Last June marked the end of Stuart Rabner's 10th year as chief justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court. He was nominated by Gov. Corzine on June 4, 2007, confirmed and sworn in by the end of the month. Rabner, a Democrat, was reappointed by Gov. Christie, a Republican, for tenure and confirmed in June 2014.

Rabner graduated from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, attended Harvard Law School, from which he graduated in 1985, and clerked for U.S. District Judge Dickinson Debevoise. Starting in 1986, he spent more than 20 years in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey, which included a stint as chief of the Criminal Division and as first assistant US attorney, prior to becoming counsel to Gov. Corzine in January 2006 and attorney general of New Jersey later that year.

Rabner's experience proved significant in writing a number of important criminal law opinions that have had great practical significance in the trial of New Jersey cases and, as a result of their precedential value, throughout the nation. They include State v. Henderson, where the reliability of eyewitness testimony was in issue. The court remanded the case to a retired Superior Court judge sitting as a standing master and asked that he examine existing guidelines for processing and weighing eyewitness testimony. Using the master's findings, the court revised the legal standard for assessing eyewitness identification evidence because it (1) does not offer an adequate measure of reliability, (2) does not sufficiently deter inappropriate police conduct, and (3) relies too heavily on the jury's ability to evaluate identification evidence.

The chief's opinion in State v. Earls recognized the evolving use of cell phones and the right to privacy in such use. The court held that, generally, a warrant is required to obtain information about use and location of cell phones. The chief's opinion in State v. Slater announced the present test related to withdrawal of a guilty plea. And in North Jersey Media Group v. Lyndhurst, he wrote the court's opinion that required police to disclose a dashcam video of a fatal shooting.

Among his other notable opinions is one providing a test for awarding counsel fees in successful OPRA cases (Mason v. Hoboken), and another holding that the state electorate cannot recall a U.S. senator (The Committee to Recall Menendez v. Wells). He added to our jurisprudence a holding determining who is a journalist or who is entitled to the newsperson's privilege on the internet (Too Much Media v. Hale); and that a homeowners' association cannot prohibit a resident from posting political signs or distributing information such as HOA campaign literature on the premises (Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners Ass'n v. Khan and Dubliner v. 2000 Linwood Ave. Owners Inc.). Probably the most well-known of his opinions is Garden State Equality v. Dow, which denied a stay on the implementation of the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry. He has also assigned important opinions to the associate justices who have developed reputations as outstanding jurists.

A good chief justice is one who helps develop consensus on issues in decision-making but also helps to reform a system in need of change. Using the New Jersey Supreme Court's unique and plenary power over administration of the judiciary and rule-making power over practice and procedure in the courts, Chief Justice Rabner has led the court in developing a protocol for handling complex business cases, providing counsel to veterans in need of legal counsel, and upgrading the judiciary's use of technology, including electronic filing. He personally chaired a committee that resulted in recommending changes to the criminal justice system, leading to a constitutional amendment and statutory changes so that those with low risk of recidivism or flight are released from pretrial detention sooner, while high risk offenders may be detained pretrial. The chief also wrote the opinions regarding discovery and the testimony necessary to establish the right to pretrial detention of defendants. (State v. Robinson and State v. Ingram).

In his role as administrator in chief, the chief has not yet impacted the process sufficiently to bring down the cost of civil litigation. Hopefully, he will instill in the judges he leads a mindset to consider the economic impact of all their actions or inactions on the cost of litigation. It is time to reassess all our litigation processes for their cost-effectiveness without sacrificing the quality of justice. Establishing and driving a judicial culture aggressively looking for ways to trim costs are core functions of judicial leadership. Setting in motion protocols that require lawyers to practice in such a cost-saving culture would have enormous and lasting social value.

In 2009 we called upon the court to reconvene Chief Justice Wilentz's multi-disciplined Committee on Efficiency to examine bottom-up the streamlining of all aspects of the litigation process. The last such examination was conducted in 1981, in the final report of the Supreme Court Committee on Efficiency in the Operation of the Courts of New Jersey. We need to be at a place where lawyers who profit from our system's inefficiencies are not rewarded, and where clients who are paying for these inefficiencies get the relief to which they are entitled.

In his first 10 years of service, Stuart Rabner's quiet and respectful demeanor, winning personality and formidable intellect, have earned the well-deserved respect of the bench and bar. He has 13 more years to serve until he reaches his mandatory retirement date on June 30, 2030. After seven more years of service, Chief Justice Rabner will become the longest serving chief justice of the eight chief justices serving under the 1948 state constitution. We wish him well in meeting the challenges of the future.