N.J. appeals court: Overtly religious people can be barred from juries

By The Associated Press

01.13.03

Printer-friendly page

NEWARK, N.J. — New Jersey prosecutors can bar overtly religious people from serving on juries, a state appeals court has ruled.

Because it was a 2-1 decision, the case has a good chance of being heard by the state Supreme Court.

The decision has also raised concerns among civil liberties groups.

The court's majority determined that Lloyd Fuller was not deprived of a fair trial when the prosecutor used two of his challenges to exclude potential jurors on the grounds that religious people would be too sympathetic to the defense.

Fuller, 22, of Newark, was convicted of using a water pistol in the botched armed robbery of an Essex County Chinese restaurant and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

He appealed, claiming that the juror removals violated his 14th Amendment right to equal protection.

The majority of the panel of the Appellate Division of state Superior Court disagreed, finding that individuals perceived as devout do not comprise a specific group.

They said the controlling case in New Jersey only forbids a prosecutor to excuse jurors "who are members of a cognizable group on the basis of their presumed group bias."

The prosecutor during Fuller's trial bounced a white man who said he was a missionary and a black man wearing a long black garment and a skull cap. Neither potential juror was asked about his religious beliefs, but the prosecutor later said the black man was "obviously a Muslim."

After the defense objected, the prosecutor told the trial judge that "people who tend to be demonstrative about their religions tend to favor defendants to a greater extent than do persons who are, shall we say, not as religious."

"They may very well tend to be more accepting of a person's professions of innocence in the face of facts to the contrary," the prosecutor argued.

That is permissible, said Appellate Judge Joseph F. Lisa, who wrote, "Individuals who are demonstrative about their religion do not share the same values, tenets or practices, and thus do not represent a cross-section of society."

Appellate Judge Dorothea O'C. Wefing concurred, but Appellate Judge Jose L. Fuentes said the challenges violated not only Fuller's right to equal protection, but the potential jurors' First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

"If the discriminatory practice involved here is validated by judicial countenance, courtrooms would become places where the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment could cease to exist and crucifixes, yarmulkas and other forms of religious expression and symbols of affiliation would be transformed into per se indicias of juror disqualification," Fuentes wrote.

The ruling, issued Dec. 31, disturbed John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit group in Charlottesville, Va., that provides legal services in civil liberties cases.

"Clearly, you have a class of people that's being discriminated against," Whitehead said. "It seems to say that religious people would not be able to serve on juries unless they hide their views."