Read the full stored bill text
S3796
SENATE, No. 3796
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
222nd LEGISLATURE
�
INTRODUCED MARCH 5, 2026
Sponsored by:
Senator� M. TERESA RUIZ
District 29 (Essex and Hudson)
SYNOPSIS
���� Prohibits juror disqualification based on gender
identity or sexual orientation; codifies procedures when discriminatory use of
peremptory challenges is alleged.
CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT
���� As introduced.
��
An Act
concerning disqualification from jury service, amending
R.S.10:1-8
and N.J.S.2B:23-10 and supplementing Title 2B of the New Jersey Statutes
.
����
Be It
Enacted
by the Senate and General Assembly of
the State of New Jersey:
���� 1.��� R.S.10:1-8 is amended to
read as follows:
���� 10:1-8.��� No citizen
possessing all other qualifications prescribed by law shall be disqualified for
service as a grand or petit juror in any court on account of race, color,
creed, national origin, ancestry, marital status
[
or
]
,
sex,
gender identity,
or affectional or sexual orientation,
and any officer or other person
charged with any duty in the selection or summoning of jurors who shall purposely
or knowingly exclude or fail to summon any citizen for the cause aforesaid
shall
[
,
on conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor
]
be subject
to a civil penalty of $5,000 which shall be collected in a summary proceeding pursuant
to the �Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999,� P.L.1999, c.274 (C.2A:58-10 et seq.)
[
, and be fined
not more than $5,000.00
]
.��
(cf: P.L.1970, c.80, s.3)
���� 2.��� N.J.S.2B:23-10 is
amended to read as follows:
���� 2B:23-10.�� Examination of
jurors.��� a.�� In the discretion of the court, parties to any trial may
question any person summoned as a juror after the name is drawn and before the
swearing, and without the interposition of any challenge, to determine whether
or not to interpose a peremptory challenge or a challenge for cause.� Such
examination shall be permitted in order to disclose whether or not the juror is
qualified, impartial and without interest in the result of the action.� The
questioning shall be conducted in open court under the trial judge's
supervision.
���� b.��� (Deleted by amendment,
P.L.2007, c.204).
����
c.���� In any civil or
criminal trial, no party shall purposefully use a peremptory challenge to
remove a prospective juror on the basis of an assumption that the prospective
juror cannot be fair and impartial in carrying out the duties of a juror:
����
(1)�� due to any personal
characteristic set forth in R.S.10:1-8; or
����
(2)�� because the
prospective juror is a member of a constitutionally protected class.
(cf: P.L.2007, c.204, s.4)
���� 3.��� (New section)��� a.�� A
party objecting to the peremptory challenge of a prospective juror may
establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination:
���� (1)�� by showing that the
challenge was exercised in violation of subsection c. of N.J.S.2B:23-10, and
���� (2)�� by producing evidence
sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference of discriminatory
purpose.
���� b.��� When a prima facie case
of purposeful discrimination is established, the burden shifts to the party who
used the peremptory challenge to show that the exclusion was, in the discretion
of the court, the product of an acceptable situation-specific basis and a
reasoned, neutral purpose.
���� c.���� The court shall weigh
the basis for the objection to the use of the peremptory challenge against the
credibility of the proffered reasons for the prospective juror�s exclusion.�
The court shall determine whether the explanations provided for the use of the
peremptory challenge are a pretext or have a reasoned, neutral purpose.� If the
court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the reasons stated for
the use of the peremptory challenge are the product of an acceptable
situation-specific basis and have a reasoned, neutral purpose supported by the
record, the court shall permit the use of the peremptory challenge.� Otherwise,
the court shall deny the peremptory challenge and proceed as provided in
subsection d. of this section.� The court shall state the basis for its ruling
on the record.
���� d.��� In addition to any other
sanctions as may be provided by the Rules of Court, if the court denies the
exclusion of a prospective juror by the use of peremptory challenge on the
basis of purposeful discrimination, the court may employ one or more of the following
remedies to assure a fair and impartial trial to all parties, redress the
constitutionally impermissible behavior, and expedite proceedings:
���� (1)�� after consultation with
counsel for each party, reseat the wrongfully excused juror;
���� (2)�� order the forfeiture of
the peremptory challenge that was improperly used;
���� (3)�� dismiss the jury panel
and start jury selection anew; or
���� (4)�� order the forfeiture of
one peremptory challenge of the party who sought to use a peremptory challenge
for purposeful discrimination or order the addition of one peremptory challenge
for the other party.
���� 4.��� This act shall take
effect immediately.
STATEMENT
���� This bill would make it
unlawful to disqualify a person from jury service based on the person�s gender
identity or affectional or sexual orientation.�
���� Under R.S.10:1-8, it is
unlawful to disqualify a citizen for service as a grand or petit juror based on
race, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, marital status, or sex if the
citizen possesses all other qualifications prescribed by law.� Any officer or
other person responsible for the selection or summoning of jurors who excludes
or fails to summon any citizen on such basis is guilty of a misdemeanor and
subject to a fine of up to $5,000.� This bill would add gender identity or
affectional or sexual orientation to the enumerated grounds set out in the
statute.
���� P.L.1978, c.95, the �New
Jersey Code of Criminal Justice,� abolished the term �misdemeanor.� This bill
would update the statute to be consistent with the Code�s classification
scheme. Under this scheme, a �misdemeanor� under these circumstances would be treated
as a crime of the fourth degree. (See N.J.S.2C:1-4, 2C:1-5, and 2C:43-1).� This
bill amends R.S.10:1-8 accordingly, making a violation of the statute a crime
of the fourth degree.� A crime of the fourth degree is generally punishable
by a term of imprisonment of up to
18 months or a fine up to $10,000, or both
.
���� The bill deletes the reference
in R.S.10:1-8 to a maximum fine of $5,000 for a violation of this offense. This
would make the statute consistent with the maximum fine of $10,000 that is
generally imposed under the Code for a crime of the fourth degree.
����
R.S.10:1-8 provides that no citizen possessing all other qualifications
prescribed by law shall be disqualified for jury service on account of race,
color, creed, national origin, ancestry, marital status, or sex. This bill
would add gender identity and affectional or sexual orientation to this list of
grounds enumerated in the statute.
����� This
bill would add a new section 2 to the bill amending N.J.S.2B:23-10, concerning
prospective jurors, to provide that a party shall not use a peremptory
challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of an assumption that the
prospective juror is biased merely because of a characteristic set forth in
R.S.10:1-8 or any other constitutionally impermissible grounds.
����� Peremptory
challenges, which are authorized by N.J.S.2B:23-10 and N.J.S.2B:23-13 and by
R.1:8-3 of the court rules, allow a party to dismiss a prospective juror before
trial without stating a reason for the dismissal.
����� The
bill also adds a new section 3 concerning peremptory challenges.� This new
section is modeled on standards set out in �Principles for Juries & Jury
Trials,� promulgated by the American Bar Association in 2005.� Section 3
provides that it shall be presumed that each party is utilizing peremptory
challenges validly, without basing those challenges on constitutionally
impermissible reasons.
����� Under
section 3 of the bill, a party objecting to the challenge of a prospective
juror on the grounds that the challenge has been exercised on a
constitutionally impermissible basis, establishes a prima facie case of
purposeful discrimination:
����� (1)�� by
showing that the challenge was exercised against a member of a constitutionally
cognizable group, and
����� (2)�� by
demonstrating that this fact, and any other relevant circumstances, raise an
inference that the party challenged the prospective juror because of the
juror's membership in that group.
����� When
a prima facie case of discrimination is established, the burden shifts to the
party making the challenge to show a nondiscriminatory basis for the challenge.
����� �The
bill provides that the court shall evaluate the credibility of the proffered
reasons. If the court finds that the reasons stated are constitutionally
permissible and are supported by the record, the court shall permit the
challenge. If the court finds that the reasons for the challenge are
constitutionally impermissible, the court shall deny the challenge and, after
consultation with counsel, determine whether further remedy is appropriate. The
court shall state the reasons, including whatever factual findings are
appropriate, for sustaining or overruling the objection on the record.
����
The bill sets out specific procedures that would go into effect if there
is an allegation that a party is using peremptory challenges in a
discriminatory manner.
���� Under
the bill, a
party objecting to the peremptory challenge of a prospective
juror may establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination:
���� (1)�� by showing that the
challenge was exercised in violation of subsection c. of N.J.S.2B:23-10, and
���� (2)�� by producing evidence
sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference of discriminatory
purpose.
���� The bill provides that when a
prima facie case of purposeful discrimination is established, the burden shifts
to the party who used the peremptory challenge to show that the exclusion was,
in the discretion of the court, the product of an acceptable situation-specific
basis and a reasoned, neutral purpose.
���� �The court would weigh the
basis for the objection to the use of the peremptory challenge against the
credibility of the proffered reasons for the prospective juror�s exclusion.�
The court would determine whether the explanations provided for the use of the
peremptory challenge are a pretext or have a reasoned, neutral purpose.� If the
court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the reasons stated for
the use of the peremptory challenge are the product of an acceptable
situation-specific basis and have a reasoned, neutral purpose supported by the
record, the court would� permit the use of the peremptory challenge.�
Otherwise, the court would deny the peremptory challenge and proceed as
provided in the amendments.� The court would state the basis for its ruling on
the record.
���� The bill further provides
that, in addition to any other sanctions as may be provided by the Rules of
Court, if the court denies the exclusion of a prospective juror by the use of
peremptory challenge on the basis of purposeful discrimination, the court may
employ one or more of the following remedies to assure a fair and impartial
trial to all parties, redress the constitutionally impermissible behavior, and
expedite proceedings:
���� (1)�� after consultation with
counsel for each party, reseat the wrongfully excused juror;
���� (2)�� order the forfeiture of
the peremptory challenge that was improperly used;
���� (3)�� dismiss the jury panel
and start jury selection anew; or
���� (4)�� order the forfeiture of
one peremptory challenge of the party who sought to use a peremptory challenge
for purposeful discrimination or order the addition of one peremptory challenge
for the other party.
����� The
bill also eliminates the criminalization in current law in R.S.10:1-8 for
disqualifying a juror on discriminatory grounds.� In the view of the sponsor,
criminal prosecutions for this violation are unlikely. Under the bill, a person
who violates the statute would not be guilty of a crime but would be subject to
a civil penalty of $5,000, to be collected under the
"Penalty
Enforcement Law of 1999," P.L.1999, c.274 (C.2A:58-10 et seq.).
The bill also adds a requirement that a violation
of the statute would occur only if the person acts purposely or knowingly.
�