COSTELLO, A.J.S.C.
This matter comes before the court by way of an application filed by the Acting Essex County Prosecutor to have this court order the jury manager to turn over the dates of birth of certain persons in the petit jury pool to the State to facilitate running criminal background checks on those potential jurors. The application is opposed by the Office of the Public Defender.
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey ("ACLU-NJ") and the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers-New Jersey ("ACDL-NJ") have filed requests to appear as amicus curiae, with accompanying briefs on both the amicus issue and the substantive issue. Both join the Public Defender in opposing all or parts of the State's request. The State opposes their participation.
The State's request is essentially to be allowed in certain future unspecified cases access to the dates of birth of petit jurors contained in the Judiciary's database for the purpose of more easily and accurately determining if any of the potential jurors have criminal convictions. The State seeks this remedy first to avoid the legal issues of having an unqualified juror sworn in. These issues can present when a juror is discovered as unqualified before a verdict, but so late in deliberations as to cause a mistrial, or when that juror participates in rendering a guilty verdict, and the verdict is challenged on appeal due to the unqualified juror having voted. The State also seeks to root out all instances in voir dire of a juror having lied or given inaccurate information about prior criminal involvement.
Traditionally, the role of amicus curiae was to be advisory rather than adverse. Id. at 258, 164 A.2d 374. However, courts have generally shifted away from the strict Casey framework and now allow amici curiae to be more partial. See Neonatology Assocs., P.A. v. Comm'n of Internal Revenue, 293 F.3d 128 (3d Cir.2002). Rule 1:13-9 has been interpreted as establishing "a liberal standard for permitting amicus appearances." Pfizer, Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 23 N.J.Tax 421, 424 (2007).
In determining whether to grant an amicus application, courts consider whether the applicant can assist the court by providing "the court with information pertaining to matters of law about which the court may be in doubt." Keenan v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 106 N.J.Super. 312, 316, 255 A.2d 786 (App.Div.1969). Courts also consider whether the case has "broad implications," Taxpayers Association v. Weymouth Township, 80 N.J. 6, 17, 364 A.2d 1016 (1976), or is of "general public interest." Casey, supra, 63 N.J.Super. at 259, 164 A.2d 374.
The ACLU-NJ has established that it meets the requirements of Rule 1:13-9. First, the ACLU-NJ filed its motion in a timely manner. Second, the ACLU-NJ's participation will assist in resolving an issue of public importance. The ACLU-NJ's expertise on privacy issues, and its experience participating as amicus curiae in other cases involving the jury selection process, will assist the court in resolving the privacy issues presented in this case. Third, while the position of the ACLU-NJ is clearly more aligned with that of the Public Defender and the defense bar than that of the State, no party to the litigation will be unduly prejudiced by the ACLU-NJ's participation. This case has broad implications and is of general public interest because the results of the case will affect the experiences of many prospective jurors. Therefore, the relevant court rule and case law support the participation of the ACLU-NJ in this matter.
The ACDL-NJ has also met the requirements of Rule 1:13-9. Although the ACDL-NJ did not file its brief by the deadline set by the court, the State did not object to the lateness of the ACDL-NJ's submission. The brief was filed before oral argument and did not cause a delay in either the oral argument or the issuance of the decision. The ACDL-NJ's participation is helpful to the court because it represents a different constituency with a different perspective than that of either party: the interests of the statewide criminal defense bar, including members of the private bar. No party to the litigation has claimed it will be unduly prejudiced by ACDL-NJ's participation in this matter.
Voir dire questioning of potential jurors in New Jersey has evolved from a common law system in which no questioning was allowed absent an extrinsically established cause for challenge, to a system in which jurors are asked multiple questions about their personal lives to allow attorneys to more intelligently exercise their peremptory challenges. Finding the process at one point to have veered too close to full-on
New Jersey laws concerning voir dire questioning of potential jurors originated from the English common law tradition, in which "the rule has always been that such examination may be conducted only after a challenge for cause has been interposed, and then in support of the challenge.... One basic reason was the fundamental confidence in the English juror's fair-mindedness vitalized by his oath." State v. Manley, 54 N.J. 259, 272, 255 A.2d 193 (1969) (citing Moore, Voir Dire Examination of Jurors: I. The English Practice, 16 Geo. L.J. 438 (1928)). New Jersey initially followed this common law approach, the State's highest court twice holding in the nineteenth century that no juror could be questioned under oath unless the facts underlying a challenge were established in court by extrinsic evidence. Clifford v. State, 61 N.J.L. 217, 39 A. 721 (E. & A. 1897); State v. Zellers, 7 N.J.L. 220 (Sup. Ct.1824). In each case, the Court based its decision to bar questioning jurors in part on the premise that jurors would not be placed under oath without proof of their disqualification first shown by extrinsic evidence.
In Zellers, supra, 7 N.J.L. at 223 the Court acknowledged that the practice of questioning unchallenged jurors prior to swearing had been "slipped into," and in a separately issued footnote the case laid out a sampling of different approaches to the issue taken in jurisdictions throughout New England, from Pennsylvania's adherence to the English common law system, to New York City's accepted practice of placing potential jurors under oath to be questioned concerning bias, to the District of Rhode Island Circuit Court's practice of allowing potential jurors to be questioned in court without their first being challenged or placed under oath. Id. at 223-27 (citing Respublica v. Joseph Dennie, 4 Yeates 267 (1805), In re Robert Goodwin, 5 City Hall. Rec. 14, and United States v. Cornell, 2 Mason's Rep. 106.) In refusing to allow the defendant's attorney to ask whether a potential juror had already come to a conclusion regarding the defendant's guilt, the Court reasoned that, "What a man says, not under oath, cannot be received in any form." Id. at 222. The Court did not consider the possibility that the prospective juror might be placed under oath prior to this general questioning. The Zellers Court held, in language quoted approvingly seventy-three years later in Clifford, that "the only proper way is, to make the challenge, and then prove it upon oath." Ibid.
In Clifford, without having first challenged the jurors he sought to question, counsel for the defendant sought to ask potential jurors general questions, "`so that the right of exercising a peremptory challenge may be intelligently used.'" Clifford, supra, 61 N.J.L. at 221, 39 A. 721. The trial court refused to permit the questioning since "the juror was not put under oath, and it was not proposed to put him under oath." Ibid. The appellate court affirmed, and went on to excoriate the proposed practice as a license to cause "unseemly, vexatious and expensive delays." Id. at 223, 39 A. 721. In explaining the proposed questioning's negative implications, the Court assumed that, if questioning were allowed, it would not be conducted under oath. The Court proceeded on the premise no oath could be administered
Both in Zellers, supra, 7 N.J.L. at 222-23, and, seventy-three years later, in Clifford, supra, 61 N.J.L. at 221-23, 39 A. 721, the common law practice was upheld, and the rule stood that prospective jurors were not allowed to be questioned without an independent evidentiary showing of a cause for challenge.
Not long after Clifford, New Jersey began to move by legislation toward the modern American version of voir dire, in which jurors may be questioned to enable the intelligent exercise of peremptory and for-cause challenges. There was never, however, a corresponding move away from the traditional practice, clearly embraced by the nineteenth century courts, whereby potential jurors are not placed under oath, absent an extrinsically established challenge for cause, prior to being sworn as the jury in a particular case. The state's first law permitting peremptory challenges in civil cases, L. 1911, c. 151, passed in 1911, also permitted the questioning of potential jurors, "for the purpose of disclosing whether or not the juror is impartial as between the parties to the suit." See Wright v. Bernstein, 23 N.J. 284, 293, 129 A.2d 19 (1957). The statute made no provision with respect to oaths taken by prospective jurors questioned under it, and no reported cases address the issue directly.
The 1911 statute's provision authorizing questioning of jurors was held to apply only to civil suits, Lamble v. State, 96 N.J.L. 231, 234, 114 A. 346 (1921), and the 1931 statute (L. 1931, c. 298) concerned only capital punishment cases,
When the Legislature enacted N.J.S.A. 2A:78-4 (repealed 1995),
The statute did not refer directly to the issue of juror qualifications.
Questioning and challenging with respect to the basic statutory qualifications to serve on any jury in the State of New Jersey were instead addressed by N.J.S.A. 2A:78-6 (repealed 1995).
Further, the evolution of voir dire practice toward the increased scrutiny of potential jurors was affirmatively curtailed by the Supreme Court over forty years ago. The modern Court Rule, Rule 1:8-3(a), took effect in 1969, and placed the responsibility for voir dire questioning plainly in the hands of the trial judge rather than the attorneys: "For the purpose of determining whether a challenge should be interposed, the court shall interrogate the prospective jurors ... without placing them under oath. The parties or their attorneys may supplement the court's interrogation in its discretion." R. 1:8-3(a). The Supreme Court shortly thereafter explained how it expected the Rule to be administered:
The Court held that the rule change had been necessitated because attorneys' interrogations of jurors "got out of hand." Id. at 276, 255 A.2d 193. It criticized those attorneys for misusing the process:
It noted that, "In many instances it has taken as long or longer to impanel a jury as to try the case," id. at 281, 255 A.2d 193, and that the new system would, "avoid the unreasonable expense of a protracted jury examination, ... obviate the expense of wasted court time and serve the interest of ... the judicial system in the effective and productive dispatch of its business." Id. at 282, 255 A.2d 193. Although the Administrative Office of the Courts issued directives in 2006 and 2007
The history of jury selection in New Jersey, thus, is one in which jurors in non-capital criminal cases have been permitted by law to be questioned only according to limited, prescribed guidelines and almost never under oath.
The State's proposal is not entirely clear. When pressed about the logistics at oral argument, the State said that it might request the birth dates once the list is narrowed down to fourteen and the jurors are seated in the jury box for questioning, but that in some cases it might request the birth dates earlier in the selection process. As for sharing information with defense counsel, the State proposed that it share the results of the background checks with the court and with the defense only when the report reveals that a prospective juror has not been truthful or accurate about his or her criminal record. During oral argument, the State was not prepared to explain to the court exactly what other information is listed in a criminal background report. The State was fairly certain, however, that the report includes the individual's address, social security number, arrests, convictions, and juvenile record. The State was not inclined to share the street address, the social security number or the juvenile history with the defense.
The State's basis for withholding this information is that the State would access the criminal history pursuant to its authority as a criminal justice agency under N.J.A.C. 13:59-4, which precludes it from disseminating that information except as authorized by law. The State argues that handing over evidence of a prospective juror's criminal record to defense counsel would be authorized by court order (assuming this court grants the present motion), to ensure the fairness of the jury selection process. The State argues that it would not be authorized to reveal the other information contained in the report, and it
The Assignment Judge is responsible for selecting individuals at random from the juror source list to be summoned for service. N.J.S.A. 2B:20-4(a). The Assignment Judge may send out questionnaires to verify that the individuals are qualified to serve on a jury. N.J.S.A. 2B:20-3(a). The Assignment Judge then narrows down the list to only qualified jurors and composes a panel list for the jurors to be summoned that provides the "name and address, and if available, the occupation of each juror to be summoned." N.J.S.A. 2B:20-4(b). This list must be made available by the clerk of the court "to any party requesting the same at least ten days prior to the date fixed for trial ..." R. 1:8-5. During voir dire the prosecution and defense have "good cause to challenge" any juror about whether he or she is qualified to serve. N.J.S.A. 2B:23-10. The State argues that while certain information is required to be included in the panel list, the statute does not specifically restrict the Assignment Judge from providing other information on the list, such as birth dates.
The State also argues that its enforcement power gives it authority to verily the criminal history of potential jurors. As the chief law enforcement officer of Essex County, the State has the duty to "use all reasonable and lawful diligence for the detection, arrest, indictment and conviction of offenders against the laws." N.J.S.A. 2A:158-5. Confirming that jurors are qualified, the State argues, falls under this duty.
To further support this claim, the State argues that the New Jersey Administrative Code provides a basis for the State to obtain jurors' birth dates. The applicable portion of the Code states that "criminal justice agencies, for purposes of the administration of criminal justice, may ... access information collected by criminal justice agencies ... containing criminal history record information." N.J.A.C. 13:59-2.1. The State and the courts are considered criminal justice agencies. N.J.A.C. 13:59-1.1. Nowhere in the Code, however, does it state that the court is obligated to provide other criminal justice agencies with information they require in order to facilitate criminal background checks.
No New Jersey case has dealt directly with the issue of the State running criminal histories of prospective jurors.
However, states in which courts have permitted the prosecution to conduct record checks on jurors are largely distinguishable because under the jury selection procedures in those states, juror qualification checks are historically or statutorily done by the prosecution. That is not the practice in New Jersey. The Massachusetts case is distinguishable because under that state's scheme, jury qualification checks are done by law enforcement and not by the state judiciary.
The opposition filed by the Public Defender rests on several arguments. First, it argues that the release of jurors' dates of birth is not authorized by statute. Second, the Public Defender raises privacy concerns, and argues there is no case law to support the State's request. The Public Defender also argues that all information in the possession of the State must be turned over to the defense to secure a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The ACLU-NJ similarly argues the release of birth dates is not authorized by statute and that the State has not demonstrated a legitimate need to override jurors' privacy concerns. The ACLU-NJ also argues that if the birth dates are to be used to do background checks, the function should be performed by the Judiciary in a uniform manner for all jurors. Finally the ACLU-NJ argues that if this court decides to allow the use of juror birthdates, the search for records must be done by the court, to assure uniformity, a level playing field in that identical information is disseminated to each side, and the best protection for privacy interests. It further argues that the check must be done for every juror in every case, and not just in cases chosen at the whim of the prosecutor's office.
The ACDL-NJ argues that the jury selection process is uniquely the province of the Judiciary, and not a law enforcement prerogative. See In re Supervision & Assignment of the Petit Jury Panels in Essex County, 60 N.J. 554, 292 A.2d 4 (1972). It argues that the historical reasons for the jury supervision being vested in the Judiciary suggest the supervision should not be lightly ceded to the State. All of the opposition briefs point out that handing over birth dates would facilitate the ability to search multiple databases, well beyond ordering a Computerized Criminal History report for the purported purpose of checking jurors' eligibility or to verify the accuracy of their answers to questions about their prior arrest history.
The State's application does not present the simple solution to a straightforward problem that its papers suggest. The specific action requested, that the Judiciary distribute potential jurors' birthdates to the State, is both concrete and straightforward,
The right to privacy includes "`the right to be free from the government disclosing private facts about its citizens.'" Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 77, 662 A.2d 367 (1995) (quoting Ramie v. City of Hedwig Vill., 765 F.2d 490, 492 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1062, 106 S.Ct. 809, 88 L.Ed.2d 784 (1986)). To determine whether that right has been violated, a court must determine, first, "whether, and to what extent, [there is] a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information disclosed," and, if there is such a reasonable expectation, "whether the intrusion on the right of privacy is justified, balancing the governmental interest in the disclosure against the private interest in confidentiality." Ibid. Here, the analysis concerns whether the right to privacy would be violated by the action proposed by the State.
As to the reasonable expectation of prospective jurors in the confidentiality of their dates of birth, notwithstanding their own dissemination of that information on their juror qualification forms, the ACLU-NJ argues persuasively that such a reasonable expectation does exist. The ACLU-NJ first establishes, using Outside authority, that there may be an expectation in one's own date of birth generally. See Scottsdale Unified School Dist. No. 48 v. KPNX Broad. Co., 191 Ariz. 297, 955 P.2d 534, 538-39 (1998); La. Att'y Gen. Op. 09-0298 (April 5, 2010). Disclosure of birthdates to the Judiciary does not necessarily waive the right against dissemination of that information to law enforcement. See e.g., State v. Reid, 194 N.J. 386, 945 A.2d 26 (2008); State v. Domicz, 188 N.J. 285, 907 A.2d 395 (2006); State v. McAllister, 184 N.J. 17, 875 A.2d 866 (2005); State v. Mollica, 114 N.J. 329, 554 A.2d 1315 (1989); State v. Hunt, 91 N.J. 338, 450 A.2d 952 (1982).
The court finds that prospective jurors have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their dates of birth, and that that expectation is not waived by their submitting that information on their juror qualification forms. By analogy, the Louisiana Attorney General's logic is compelling here: "it is the opinion of this office that an individual public employee has an expectation that his or her date of birth and age will remain private, and that this expectation is something that society at large is prepared to recognize as reasonable." La. Att'y Gen. Op. 09-0298, supra, at 7. The court declines to find that the disclosure of that information to the Judiciary on the juror qualification form, which all prospective jurors are required to fill out, waives that expectation. When individuals submit their identifying information to the Judiciary, it is a reasonable expectation that that information will be used only by the Judiciary, and will not be further disseminated to the prosecutor's office for law enforcement purposes.
The State's application seeks access to potential jurors' birthdates in order to more easily research those individuals' criminal histories, as it argues it is authorized to do under N.J.A.C. 13:59-1 to -2.4.
With consent of all counsel, I take judicial notice that in the past five years, there have been almost 735,000 jurors summoned in Essex County, and 108,000 jurors have reported to a courtroom for a voir dire in a criminal case. The ACLU-NJ extrapolates from other records there have been approximately 700 criminal trials during this period. No party challenged this estimate.
The State has only been able to cite to three Essex County cases in its brief as contemporary examples in which the independent verification of potential jurors' criminal histories could have been helpful. State v. Pierrevil and Rollins, Indictment No. 2009-1-262; State v. Saladin Thompson, Indictment No. 2006-1-162; State v. Alfaro, Indictment No. 2008-09-02688. In none of these three cases, however, was an individual alleged to have been disqualified from jury service by reason of a prior criminal conviction. Rather, all three instances involved challenges to jurors' credibility based on inaccurate answers to voir dire questions that did not concern qualifications: in Pierrevil and Rollins, a potential juror was found to have been previously charged with a criminal offense; in Thompson, a potential juror was found to have been previously accused of a crime; and, in Alfaro, a sitting juror was found to have had an open charge pending against her. These incidents neither demonstrate cause for substantial concern, nor necessitate a judicial reaction that would infringe on the privacy rights of prospective jurors.
The State does cite to a number of cases that hold that when juror bias or disqualification is not uncovered until after deliberations have begun, entire proceedings can be tainted and mistrials can ensue. See State v. Jenkins, 182 N.J. 112, 861 A.2d 827 (2004); State v. Hightower, 146 N.J. 239, 680 A.2d 649 (1996); Wright v. Bernstein, supra, 23 N.J. at 294-95, 129 A.2d 19; State v. Farmer, 366 N.J.Super. 307, 841 A.2d 420 (App.Div.2004), certif. denied, 180 N.J. 456, 852 A.2d 192 (2004); State v. Harvey, 318 N.J.Super. 167, 723 A.2d 107 (App.Div.1999); State v. Thompson, 142 N.J.Super. 274, 277, 361 A.2d 104 (App.Div.1976). None of these cases involved whether a juror had a prior criminal record. If a juror who sat on a jury that returned a verdict is unqualified by reason of a criminal conviction, the verdict will be overturned. State v. Williams, 190 N.J.Super. 111,
The State's application for a remedy to false or inaccurate answers given during voir dire is, on certain levels, appealing. Certainly the Judiciary and all parties want all individuals who speak in court to speak truthfully and accurately: the ACDL-NJ argues "no one can oppose confirming that all proposed jurors are qualified to serve as jurors." Different parties have different reasons to want prospective jurors to be truthful and accurate, however. While the State wants to protect against the seating of jurors who had lied during voir dire concerning their criminal backgrounds, defense counsel might want to protect against the seating of jurors who had lied during voir dire concerning past victimization or associations with law enforcement. See State v. Osorio, 199 N.J. 486, 495, 973 A.2d 365 (2009). At oral argument, ACLU-NJ argued that the State's application is disingenuous, using the issue of juror qualifications as a pretext to gain a disproportionate advantage in the information war of voir dire.
Significantly, in criminal cases, the seating of jurors who may properly have been challenged for cause can be argued to be disproportionately prejudicial to the State, since the State is unable to appeal. In addition, although decisions like State v. Williams, supra, 190 N.J.Super. at 117, 462 A.2d 182, find that such improper seatings "affect[ ] substantial rights of a defendant and impinge[ ] on the integrity of the trial process," it is not surprising to find the State to be the party concerned when jurors who misstate their prior criminal histories are allowed to serve. The threat that such jurors might lie during voir dire in order to hide their bias toward the State is not entirely fanciful. See, e.g. Commonwealth v. Cousin, supra, 873 N.E.2d at 745-47.
As the opponents to the State's motion all argue, the court has questionable legal authority to make the distribution requested by the State. The authority to distribute information gathered from juror qualification forms is argued to be limited by court rule and statute when such distribution is requested by a party, and it is further argued to be circumscribed when it is requested for the purpose of verifying juror qualifications. Neither of the prohibitions on distribution argued by the opponents of this motion is decisively established. Nevertheless, the arguments do persuade that distribution of juror information to parties should be conducted with extreme caution. Because of the State's paucity of legal support for making its request, and the deficiency of its application in addressing the legitimate policy concerns raised by its opponents, the court finds Rule 1:38-5(g) presents too slim a legal basis on which to base its application for release of juror information to it alone.
Rule 1:8-5, allows that, "[t]he list of the general panel of petit jurors shall be made available by the clerk of the court to any party requesting the same at least 10 days prior to the date fixed for trial."
The Office of the Public Defender and ACLU-NJ argue that, irrespective of Rule 1:38-5 vesting power in the assignment judge to order the release of private juror information, it is Rule 1:8-5 and N.J.S.A. 2B:20-4 that prescribe the permissible information that the Judiciary may release to the parties, and that any deviation from that rule must be made by the legislature. They argue that it is only the list of the petit jurors that may be made available to the parties, as prescribed by Rule 1:8-5, and that N.J.S.A. 2B:20-4 has limited the information on those lists to "the name and address [
The ACDL-NJ argues more broadly against the Assignment Judge's legal authority to disseminate the information contained in the prospective jurors' questionnaires, not merely as unauthorized by statute, but as affirmatively disallowed by the State's constitution. It relies upon In re Supervision & Assignment of the Petit Jury Panels, supra, 60 N.J. at 559-62, 292 A.2d 4:
The ACDL-NJ also argues the Judiciary should not cede its role in determining juror qualifications to the State, since it is not an impartial participant in the proceedings.
Rule 1:38-5(g) clearly gives the Assignment Judge authority to distribute jury questionnaires by order. This court does not find that Rule 1:8-5 and N.J.S.A. 2B:20-4, by implication, place an absolute limit on that clearly established authority. They do, however, suggest that distribution to parties of information concerning jurors is governed by a scheme apart from Rule 1:38-5(g). The ACDL-NJ's point is well taken that In re Supervision & Assignment of the Petit Jury Panels, and the constitutional clause on which it rests, would counsel against delegating qualification-verification responsibility to the State, which is itself a party to all criminal cases in the county.
The government's interest in disclosure is extremely limited. For these reasons, this court finds that the balance of interests supports preventing dissemination of
Even if there were no privacy concerns, the State's proposed practice raises due process issues. Both the Public Defender and the ACLU-NJ argue that a criminal defendant's constitutional right to an impartial jury, see State v. Williams, 113 N.J. 393, 409, 550 A.2d 1172 (1988), precludes the Judiciary from distributing information pertaining to jury selection to only the prosecution. At oral argument, the Public Defender argued forcefully that every piece of information that is given to the State should also be given to counsel for the defendant, as a matter of essential fairness.
In addition, all of the opponents of the State's motion note the very real possibility of abuse should the State be given the information requested in its motion without sufficient oversight. The ACDL-NJ argues that, if the motion were to be granted, it would be entirely in the State's discretion to decide which jurors to research and for what reasons. This raises the specter of concerns addressed in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) and State v. Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508, 511 A.2d 1150 (1986), i.e. issues of fairness in jury composition. These concerns are legitimate, and the State offered no substantive proposals to alleviate them.
The neutrality of the Judiciary, fundamental notions of fairness, due process protections afforded to criminal defendants, and the potential for abuse in the uneven sharing of information all compel the conclusion that distribution of private juror information to the State, without distributing the same to defense counsel, would be problematic. The State, in its proposal and at oral argument, failed to adequately account for this problematic discrepancy in information made available to the parties.
In sum, Rule 1:38-5 does authorize the Assignment Judge to distribute juror questionnaires. However, the In re Supervision & Assignment of the Petit Jury Panels decision, Rule 1:8-5 and N.J.S.A. 2B:20-4, all suggest that such distribution to parties in a case, so that those parties may conduct independent verification of juror qualifications, should be conducted with extreme caution. The State's instant application does not propose a system rooted in deep caution. Instead, the State's application would have the Judiciary provide it with a competitive advantage at trial in at least two ways: by enabling the verification of voir dire answers of unique importance to it, and by providing it alone with the added ability to learn pertinent information about potential and sitting jurors. Although the State has established that a small number of unqualified individuals sitting on juries may be a
