Ready or Not, Remote Grand Juries Via Zoom Getting Test Run in New Jersey Due to COVID-19
The pilot program was recommended as a first step toward restarting parts of the criminal justice process.
May 15, 2020 at 03:15 PM
6 minute read
With in-person grand jury proceedings on hold due to the COVID-19 pandemic, New Jersey's judiciary announced a pilot program to hold virtual grand jury proceedings via Zoom video conference technology in Bergen and Mercer counties.
The two-county rollout could be followed by expansion of the program elsewhere in the state. Authorized by a state Supreme Court order issued Thursday, the pilot program was recommended by a court committee on remote grand jury operations as a first step toward restarting parts of the criminal justice process that were stalled by COVID-19, Administrative Director of the Courts Glenn Grant said in a notice to the bar.
The COVID-19 pandemic has court officials scrambling to provide continuity of court proceedings without endangering the health of litigants, lawyers, judges or jurors.
In New York state, where no grand juries are impaneled, the state's District Attorneys Association called for the resumption of grand jury operations in areas with low COVID-19 infection rates. Some California state courts are allowing grand juries to convene via Zoom. In Virginia, some prosecutors have honored social distancing guidelines by eliminating the custom of having grand jurors gather in a small room to deliberate.
In New Jersey's pilot program, court staff will supply grand jurors with technical assistance and laptops or tablets, if they don't have one, but they will have to have internet access. Jurors may use their own computer but won't be permitted to use a smartphone. Jurors will be required to swear or affirm a supplement to the standard oath of secrecy regarding confidentiality requirements in a virtual setting, the notice said. The supplemental oath includes a requirement that grand jurors not allow anyone else to hear or observe the grand jury and that they must not record, photograph or broadcast the proceedings.
In-person grand jury selections and sessions have been suspended statewide through May 31, which has left an additional 1,400 defendants sitting in county jails awaiting indictment. Others are awaiting indictment on pretrial release.
Some lawyers expressed concerns about the pilot program.
Paul Brickfield, a defense lawyer with Brickfield & Donohue in River Edge, said the pilot program is good news for people who are being held in a county jail while awaiting indictment. The pilot project will provide some movement for cases that were at a standstill due to COVID-19, he said.
Brickfield said he believes a small subset of more complex grand jury cases, where the defendant seeks to submit exonerating evidence in hopes of obtaining a no-bill, is not well-suited for a virtual grand jury over Zoom. Jurors are less able to sort out the credibility of conflicting testimony while participating by video link from their homes, said Brickfield.
"That's a situation where I don't think this will work," he said.
Brickfield also worries about the confidentiality of a grand jury process where jurors follow the proceedings remotely from their homes. Other parties in the juror's home might be able to hear the proceedings and spread information about defendants and the crimes they were accused of.
"My main concern is ensuring jurors abide by the secrecy oath. Unfortunately, they're on the honor system," Brickfield said.
Another Bergen County lawyer, Perry Primavera of Hackensack, expressed similar concerns that virtual grand juries would compromise secrecy of the grand jury process and make it harder for jurors to assess witness credibility.
Grand juries are often presented photos, medical and bank records that are highly sensitive, and there's no way to control who else hears the testimony with jurors in remote locations, said Primavera.
"I think we're losing the ability to keep the process secret. That effects everyone," he said.
A Mercer County criminal defense lawyer, Robin Kay Lord, also expressed concerns that a remote grand jury would compromise confidentiality and replace the grand jury's "pristine" nature with an event marred by the risks of hackers and background noise from barking dogs. She said a "better solution" than the pilot program for grand juries would be to revise New Jersey's 2017 Criminal Justice Reform Act to provide a mechanism for defendants to win release based on the risk of contracting COVID-19 in a county jail. New Jersey judges have routinely denied such petitions, Lord said.
Judiciary spokesman Peter McAleer said to ensure confidentiality of grand juries, the courts will ask jurors to participate in a room by themselves, and will furnish headphones for them to use, to keep others from overhearing the deliberations. Jurors are asked to notify court officials if their home environment does not afford privacy, he said.
"There's always a level of trust afforded to jurors to take their civic duty responsibly, and by and large they do" respect confidentiality of the grand jury, McAleer said.
As for concerns about jurors' ability to assess credibility of testimony by video, McAleer said remote grand juries will only hear third- and fourth-degree crimes and will likely be limited to cases with only one witness. And the remote grand jury will only hear cases where the defendant agrees to that forum, he said.
"It's a pilot program. We're trying to respond to a growing crisis. The other option is to do nothing," McAleer said.
The judiciary spokesman disputed Lord's assertion about courts not providing a means for defendants to get out of jail in order to avoid the risk of contracting COVID-19. In such cases, the lawyer can make a motion to reopen the detention hearing, McAleer said.
The court committee that recommended the pilot project for remote grand juries includes representatives from the Attorney General's Office, the Office of the Public Defender, the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey, the ACLU, the New Jersey State Bar Association, and the private defense bar, Grant said in announcing the pilot program, which is to begin "promptly."
"The Supreme Court will assess the results of the pilot program in determining whether and how to expand virtual grand jury operations to additional counties and the State Grand Jury," Grant said. "Virtual grand jury sessions are another way that the New Jersey courts are ensuring uninterrupted access to normal during the COVID-19 crisis as we seek to establish a new kind of normal."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRetiring AOC Director Judge Glenn A. Grant Walks Away From Judiciary 'Tremendously Impressed' by New Jersey's Judges
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250