WEBVTT 2 00:00:09.862 --> 00:00:12.264 JOHN S. FURLONG: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR, JOHN FUR, ON, 3 00:00:12.264 --> 00:00:17.806 FURN AND CRASS KNEE ON MAV OF THE DEFENDANT, MOVE VANLT. 4 00:00:17.806 --> 00:00:22.762 MATTHEW S. ADAMS: ON BEHALF OF AMICUS CURIAE RAY, THE ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL 5 00:00:22.762 --> 00:00:25.699 DEFENSE LAWYERS IN NEW JERSEY. BRIAN J. NEARY: GOOD MORNING, 6 00:00:25.699 --> 00:00:30.965 CHIEF JUSTICE MY NAME IS BRIEN NEARY MY ADDRESS IS 21 MANL STREET IN HACK 7 00:00:30.965 --> 00:00:36.627 SANL AND THOD CHEEFR I AM APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE NEW SKWLERS STATE BAR ASSOCIATION. 8 00:00:36.627 --> 00:00:39.906 RANDOLPH E. MERSHON, III: CYST MERCER COUNTY PROSECUTOR RAND 9 00:00:39.906 --> 00:00:44.746 DOFL MER ON BEHALF OF THE STATE, HEROIN HONORABLE EDWARD M. NEAFSEY CYST ATTORNEY 10 00:00:44.746 --> 00:00:49.753 GENERAL EE, AMEAN CUSS CURE RAY ON MAF OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. 11 00:00:49.753 --> 00:00:51.955 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: GOOD MORNING COUNSEL AND WELCOME THE FIRST CASE IS T THE 12 00:00:51.955 --> 00:00:57.015 ISSUE INVOLVED THE IS CON STIT TUSHGS NALTS OF THE VIRTUAL GRAND JURY 13 00:00:57.015 --> 00:00:59.518 PROGRAM AND I WOULD ASK ALL PARTIES TO FOCUS YOUR ARGUMENTS ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL 14 00:00:59.518 --> 00:01:03.764 QUESTION, MR. FURLONG, PLEASE GOAL AHEAD. JOHN S. FURLONG: 15 00:01:03.764 --> 00:01:07.938 THAUNG, YOUR HONOR, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, COUNSEL, IF THE 16 00:01:07.938 --> 00:01:12.615 COURT PLEASE I WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE THREE MINUTES ON REBUTTAL, IF THAT IS 17 00:01:12.615 --> 00:01:14.631 APPROPRIATE. THE COURT: THAT'S FINE. JOHN S. 18 00:01:14.631 --> 00:01:20.143 FURLONG: ON BEHALF PF MR. VEGA-LARREGUI, A BELIEF RECITAL RECITATION I THINK IS 19 00:01:20.143 --> 00:01:26.613 REL VANLT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, ONE, MR. VEGA-LARREGUI, WAS ARRESTED ON, 20 00:01:26.613 --> 00:01:34.258 ON RELATIVELY MINOR DRUG CHARGES, SIMPLE POSSESSION OF ONE, POSSESSION OF 21 00:01:34.258 --> 00:01:38.694 INTENT IN THE SECOND DEGREE AND RELATED CHARGES, WHERE ALWAYS REES LEASED WITHOUT 22 00:01:38.694 --> 00:01:43.511 A MOTION AND IN FACT WAS ON PRETILE, TRIAL REES AT THE TIME OF HIS INDICTMENT. 23 00:01:43.511 --> 00:01:47.585 IN THE SEVEN MONTHS BETWEEN HIS ARREST AN AT THE TIME COURT'S ORDER SHUTH 24 00:01:47.585 --> 00:01:52.337 THE COURTS AUND COUNSELING OR SUS SPENLDZING GRAND JURIES HE WAS NOT INDICTED. 25 00:01:52.337 --> 00:02:01.908 IN THE INL TER RIM, AFTER THE COURT ORDERED A VIRTUAL GRNLG PROGRAM GRNLG, 26 00:02:01.908 --> 00:02:07.633 WAS ADOMENTD AUNT THE MATTER WAS PRESENTED AND INDICTED ON, I BELIEVE IT WAS JULY 27 00:02:07.633 --> 00:02:15.224 9TH, TWUN, HE WASN'T ARRAIGNED UNTIL SEPTEMBER AN WE ULTIMATELY FILED BOTH A 28 00:02:15.224 --> 00:02:19.267 MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND A MOTION INCLUDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, IN 29 00:02:19.267 --> 00:02:24.721 SPOERT OF OUR MOTION TO DISMISS ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS BEFORE THIS COURT, 30 00:02:24.721 --> 00:02:29.543 THAT'S SOOEN, ESSENTIALLY THREE ARGUES UNDER THE GENERAL HEADING OF FUND 31 00:02:29.543 --> 00:02:35.667 AMENTAL FAIRNESS AN THEY ALL RELATE TO THE EXTRANEOUS INFORMATION FLOWING INTO OR 32 00:02:35.667 --> 00:02:40.527 NOT INTO THE MINDS OR THE OF THE INDIVIDUAL GRAND JURORS, WE BROKE IT 33 00:02:40.527 --> 00:02:44.931 DOWN INTO THREE ISSUES, YOUR HONOR, FIRST, EXTRA INFORMATION, THE INABILITY TO CONTROL 34 00:02:44.931 --> 00:02:52.628 ULTIMATELY WHAT PEOPLE AT REMOTE LOCATIONSES MIGHT BE AK SLESING THE, IN 35 00:02:52.628 --> 00:02:56.936 THE FORM OF SMART FOENLS, TABLETS, ETC., BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A SUFFICIENT SAFEGUARD 36 00:02:56.936 --> 00:03:01.368 IN OUR VIEW OTHER THAN A CHARGE AND REQUEST THAT THEY COMPLY, THE POSSIBILITY OF 37 00:03:01.368 --> 00:03:09.267 EXTRANEOUS WITNESSES OR THIRD PERSONS BEING PRESENT, IS BASED ON THE 38 00:03:09.267 --> 00:03:12.860 ADDITION OF PROVISIONAL INFORMATION AND COMPROMISE GRAND JURY SECRECY AN FINALLY 39 00:03:12.860 --> 00:03:19.336 WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCESS OF EXTRANEOUS OR EX FROM A, TRA INFORMATION THERE IS 40 00:03:19.336 --> 00:03:25.144 NOT ULTIMATE MAT MECHANISM TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT EACH GRAND JURY, IS POSSESSED 41 00:03:25.144 --> 00:03:32.060 OF THE SAME EVENT REINFORMATION BEFORE CASTING A VOTE. THAT IS TO SAY, IF A 42 00:03:32.060 --> 00:03:38.494 ROUTINE VOIR DIRE BY THE GRAND JURY COMMISSIONER OR THE FOREPERSON OR THE PROSECUTOR 43 00:03:38.494 --> 00:03:44.922 AS TO WHETHER OR NOT EVERYONE HAS HEARD EVERYTHING IS ULTIMATELY A, I WON'T 44 00:03:44.922 --> 00:03:50.975 CALL IT A FOOLSER RAND BUT IT IS SORT OF A SELF DEFEATING PRINCIPAL, IF YOU HEAR 45 00:03:50.975 --> 00:03:56.309 THE FIRST TIME BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY WOULD HAVE HAD A BREAK IN TECHNOLOGY, I DID 46 00:03:56.309 --> 00:04:01.965 NOT PURSUE YOUR HONOR ANY OF THE ARGUMENTS VANLSED BY AM ME CHEE I LEAVE 47 00:04:01.965 --> 00:04:08.907 THEM TO THAT. IN THAT RESPECT, I REVIEWED, SDWRUJ GRANT'S SEVERAL MEMORANDA 48 00:04:08.907 --> 00:04:14.959 ADDRESSING OR ATTEMPTING TO TACKLE THE ISSUES OF ACCESS, THE PROVISION OF 49 00:04:14.959 --> 00:04:19.849 TECHNOLOGY THO KNOWS WHO DIDN'T HAVE IT, THE PROVISION OF ROOMS IN THE COURTHOUSE 50 00:04:19.849 --> 00:04:23.822 FOR THOSE WHO DIDN'T HAVE IT AN AT THAT POINT I BELIEVE HE WAS ADDRESSING 51 00:04:23.822 --> 00:04:28.897 EVERY ISSUE IN A WAY THAT HE THOUGHT WAS PRACTICAL. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE 52 00:04:28.897 --> 00:04:33.144 DEFENDANT'S POSITION IS THAT THE RIGHT TO INDICTMENT BY GRAND JURY IS FUND 53 00:04:33.144 --> 00:04:46.135 AMENTAL AND ANY DIM MIN KNEW SHEN OR DIMINISHMENT OF THE THAT RIGHT, RATHER THAN 54 00:04:46.135 --> 00:04:51.893 FOR THE COURT OR THE PROSECUTOR, WOULD DIMINISH, I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY 55 00:04:51.893 --> 00:04:55.876 HIERARCHY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT GRAND JURY ARE LESS IMPORTANT, LESS THAN PET 56 00:04:55.876 --> 00:05:02.137 AT THIS TIME JURIES, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I SUPPOSE THIS IS IS SLIPPERY SLOPE 57 00:05:02.137 --> 00:05:08.046 ARGUMENT, THAT IS, THERE IS NOTHING -- MY CLIENT IS AT LARGE, THERE WAS 58 00:05:08.046 --> 00:05:15.219 NO RUSH TO GRAND JURY IN THE SIX MONTHS POST ARREST AN I AM NOT SURE KWL THERE IS 59 00:05:15.219 --> 00:05:20.974 A, WHY THERE IS A RUSH IN THE PROCEEDING SEVERAL MONTHS OTHER THAN IT WAS 60 00:05:20.974 --> 00:05:25.650 A SIMPLE CASE TO INDICT AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES I AM NOT SURE WHAT, IF 61 00:05:25.650 --> 00:05:29.372 ANY BENEFIT ACCRUED TO THE STATE OR TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM BY ADVANCING 62 00:05:29.372 --> 00:05:33.753 THIS PARTICULAR INDICTMENT AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME. I BELIEVE, THE 63 00:05:33.753 --> 00:05:41.284 OTHERS ARGUE WILL THE TRANSCRIPT, I UNDERSTAND THE CERTIFICATION PRESENT, BUT 64 00:05:41.284 --> 00:05:45.440 FROM THE BEAR READING OF THE TRANSCRIPT, ILLUSTRATED SOME OF THE TECHNICAL 65 00:05:45.440 --> 00:05:50.144 PROEBLS THAT ONE MIGHT ENCOUNTER BUT THE VERY NATURE OF THE TRANSCRIPT, LIKE I 66 00:05:50.144 --> 00:05:54.018 SAID IT DOES NOT ILLUSTRATE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE THIRD PARTIES PRESENT 67 00:05:54.018 --> 00:05:58.132 IN ANY PFT GRAND JURORS ROOMS OR HOMES, WHETHER THEY WERE ACCESSING THEIR PHONES 68 00:05:58.132 --> 00:06:03.409 OR WHETHER IN FACT THEY HEARD EVERY BIT OF EVIDENCE AND WE CAN'T KNOW, AND IF 69 00:06:03.409 --> 00:06:09.095 THIS IS TO BE ESSENTIALLY A HARMLESS ERROR SCENARIO THAT WE IN HABIT THEN 70 00:06:09.095 --> 00:06:14.113 I DEFER TO YOUR HONOR AND THE COURT BUT WITH RESPECT TO WHY WE WOULD WANT TO GO 71 00:06:14.113 --> 00:06:17.730 DOWN THIS PARTICULAR ROAD AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME IS STILL NOT CLEAR TO 72 00:06:17.730 --> 00:06:21.851 ME. AT THE ENLD OF THE DAY THERE WERE OTHER MECHANISMS THAT WE COULD WELL HAVE 73 00:06:21.851 --> 00:06:28.227 PURSUED THAT WOULD NOT HAVE INVOLVED DIMINUTION TO THE TH RIGHT TO GRAND 74 00:06:28.227 --> 00:06:32.499 JURY REPRESENTATION. THE. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: 75 00:06:32.499 --> 00:06:39.302 MR. FURLONG, JUST TO REMIND EVERYONE, OUR FOCUS TODAY IS NOT TO DISCUSS 76 00:06:39.302 --> 00:06:42.307 ALTERNATIVES IT IS TO TALK ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALLY NALT OF THE PROGRAM 77 00:06:42.307 --> 00:06:46.130 THAT IS BEING CHALLENGED SO LET ME ASK YOU IN THAT RESPECT, IS THERE ANY LANGUAGE 78 00:06:46.130 --> 00:06:51.981 IN THE CONSTITUTIONALLY SHUN, IN THE STATUTE AN CASE LAW THAT IS REQUIRES 79 00:06:51.981 --> 00:06:55.052 GRAND JURIES ON MEET IN PERSON. JOHN S. FURLONG: NO, NO, YOUR HONOR. 80 00:06:55.052 --> 00:06:57.666 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: IS THERE ANY BAR TO THE PROCEEDING THAT 81 00:06:57.666 --> 00:07:02.083 YOU CAN CITE TO US FROM THOSE SOURCES. JOHN S. FURLONG: NONE. 82 00:07:02.083 --> 00:07:06.098 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: AND FOR SECRECY, THE CONCERN THAT YOU HAVE 83 00:07:06.098 --> 00:07:14.977 VOICED, THERE IS ALWAYS A RISK EVEN IN THE IN PERSON GRNLG GRAND JURY, IS THERE 84 00:07:14.977 --> 00:07:20.551 NOT THAT SOMEONE COULD WALK OUT AND REVIEW WITH OTHERS WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED 85 00:07:20.551 --> 00:07:24.316 IN THE GRAND JURY ITSELF, CORRECT? JOHN S. FURLONG: THAT IS TRUE, 86 00:07:24.316 --> 00:07:28.148 I AM NOT SURE THAT THIS IS TOTALLY SPONLS I HAVE TO YOUR HONOR'S QUESTION 87 00:07:28.148 --> 00:07:32.315 BUT IN MERCER COUNTY THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE USE OF CELL PHONES IN THE ACTUAL 88 00:07:32.315 --> 00:07:36.076 GRAND JURY SUCH THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE CHARGE THEY GIVE TO GRAND JURORS, 89 00:07:36.076 --> 00:07:40.278 THE GRAND JURORS IN MERCER COUNTY ARE NOW REQUIRED TO SURRENDER THEIR CELL PHONES 90 00:07:40.278 --> 00:07:44.181 BEFORE THEY ENTER THE GRAND JURY ROOM. WE HAD THE OPTION V VIRTUAL GRAND JURY 91 00:07:44.181 --> 00:07:49.161 BEFORE THE UP AND DOWN NS PAND AND WE DID NOT EMPLOY IT I THINK FOR OBVIOUS REASONS 92 00:07:49.161 --> 00:07:53.697 AND I EXPECT THE EX GENERAL CEASE OF OUR TIME BUT WHILE THERE IS NO WRITTEN 93 00:07:53.697 --> 00:07:59.093 PRECEDENT BECAUSE INDEED WE ARE IN AN UN BRES DENTED TIME, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY 94 00:07:59.093 --> 00:08:05.937 GIVE APRIL PROBATION TO THE PROTOCOL PURSUIT. CHIEF JUSTICE 95 00:08:05.937 --> 00:08:12.309 RABNER: IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF A BREACH OF THE REQUIREMENT OF SECRECY. 96 00:08:12.309 --> 00:08:17.245 JOHN S. FURLONG: WELL, THE VERY NATURE OF THE INQUIRY IS I WOULD NOT KNOW. 97 00:08:17.245 --> 00:08:19.218 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: YOU'RE ASKING US TO SPECULATE ABOUT 98 00:08:19.218 --> 00:08:25.725 THE POSSIBILITY OF A BREECH AND RELY ON THAT AS PA BASIS THAT THE PROGRAM IS 99 00:08:25.725 --> 00:08:27.697 UNCONSTITUTIONAL. JOHN S. FURLONG: THAT'S CORRECT. 100 00:08:27.697 --> 00:08:30.751 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: AND THERE IS ALWAYS THAT POSSIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO IN 101 00:08:30.751 --> 00:08:35.991 PERSON GRAND JURIES, AS WELL, DOES THAT RENDER THOSE POTENTIALLY 102 00:08:35.991 --> 00:08:38.826 UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AS WELL. JOHN S. FURLONG: NO, THEY DO NOT, I THINK 103 00:08:38.826 --> 00:08:43.353 THOSE ARE MORE MANAGEABLE RISKS THAN THE ONE WHERE THE GRAND JURORS ARE 104 00:08:43.353 --> 00:08:47.704 NOT PHYSICALLY PRESENT. I THINK THAT IS NOT MORE THAN A COMMON SENSE RESPONSE 105 00:08:47.704 --> 00:08:50.711 TO THE T COURT'S QUESTION. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: RESPECTFULLY 106 00:08:50.711 --> 00:08:55.614 YOU POINTED OUT HARMLESS ERROR AS AN ERROR HERE DON'T WE HAVE TO START WITH 107 00:08:55.614 --> 00:08:59.630 ERROR AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED IS THERE EVIDENCE TOLL PRESENT WITH RESPECT TO A 108 00:08:59.630 --> 00:09:03.243 BREACH OF SECRECY AND SOME OF THE OTHER CONCERNS? JOHN S. 109 00:09:03.243 --> 00:09:07.844 FURLONG: PART OF MY PROEBL IN RESPONDING TO THIS COURT'S QUESTION IS I FILED THIS 110 00:09:07.844 --> 00:09:12.208 MOTION IN THE LAW DIVISION AND I HOPED TO PURSUE THAT INQUIRY IN THE COURSE 111 00:09:12.208 --> 00:09:16.931 OF THE MOTION PRACTICE BUT WHEN THE COURT TOOK THE MOTION UNHEARD IN THE LAW DIVISION 112 00:09:16.931 --> 00:09:21.939 I WAS LEFT WITHOUT THAT REMEDY SO WE ARE LEFT IN A REALLY HYPOTHETICAL ARGUMENT 113 00:09:21.939 --> 00:09:26.002 AT THIS POINT. JUSTICE ALBIN: MR. FURLONG, TELL ME IF I AM 114 00:09:26.002 --> 00:09:32.021 MISTAKEN, BUT OUR JUS STHIS SYSTEM STARTS OUT WITH A PROPOSITION THAT WE CONSIDER 115 00:09:32.021 --> 00:09:40.869 NGS CAN TRUST JURORS IN THE JURY SYSTEM, FOR INSTANCE AN I WANT YOU TO RESPOND, 116 00:09:40.869 --> 00:09:47.073 IN A PETIT JURY CASE, WE ALLOW THE JURORS TO GO HOME, THEY ARE NOT, INSTRUCTED 117 00:09:47.073 --> 00:09:51.442 NOT TO SPEAK WITH FAMILY MEMBERS, THEY ARE INSTRUCTED NOT TO DO RESEARCH, ALL OF THE 118 00:09:51.442 --> 00:09:57.023 THINGS THAT YOU ARE NOW SPECULATING THE GRAND JURORS MAY DO. IF WE START 119 00:09:57.023 --> 00:10:02.173 OUT WITH THE PREMISE THAT YOU ARE ADVANCING TO THE COURT K WE MIGHT AS WELL 120 00:10:02.173 --> 00:10:08.114 ABANDON THE ENTIRE JURY SIS SEM, PETIT JURY SYSTEM BECAUSE THE CONCERNS THAT 121 00:10:08.114 --> 00:10:13.716 YOU ARE RAISING ABOUT THE GRAND JURY WOULD EQUALLY APPLY TO A PETIT JURY THAT IS 122 00:10:13.716 --> 00:10:19.570 GOING HOME EVERY SINGLE DAY AND WE DON'T ASSUME THAT THEY BREACH THEIR OATH. 123 00:10:19.570 --> 00:10:25.871 WE DON'T ASSUME THAT THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE ORDERS THAT ARE -- AND INSTRUCTIONS 124 00:10:25.871 --> 00:10:31.223 THAT ARE GIVEN TO NO, MA'AM BY THE TRIAL COURT SO IF THALS THE CASE K WHY SHOULD 125 00:10:31.223 --> 00:10:38.971 WE ENGAGE IN THE PRUPGSZ PRESUMPTIONS AN SPECULATE TLAGSZ THAT YOU ARE MAKING 126 00:10:38.971 --> 00:10:41.459 ABOUT THE GRAND JURY. JOHN S. FURLONG: I STARLT WITH THE 127 00:10:41.459 --> 00:10:45.368 PROPOSITION THAT YOUR HONOR'S USE OF THE WORD WE IS MISPLACED, I DON'T MAKE THAT 128 00:10:45.368 --> 00:10:51.940 ASSUMPTION AT ALL, MY EXPERIENCE IS JURORS, ROUTINELY VIOLATE THEIR OATHS, THE 129 00:10:51.940 --> 00:10:58.217 LAST TRIAL I HAD IN THE LAST YEAR BEFORE THE PAND I HAD PETIT JURORS POSTING 130 00:10:58.217 --> 00:11:04.731 THEIR JURY SERVICE WHILE THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF AWAITING VOIR DIRE ON FACEBOOK. 131 00:11:04.731 --> 00:11:07.561 JUSTICE ALBIN: STOP RIGHT THERE, SHOULD WE ABANDON THE JURY 132 00:11:07.561 --> 00:11:13.031 TRIAL SYSTEM BECAUSE THERE MAY BE AN ABUSE HERE OR THERE? DO YOU 133 00:11:13.031 --> 00:11:19.148 WANT TO GO TO TRIAL BY JUDGES, FORGET ABOUT JURORS. JOHN S. FURLONG: 134 00:11:19.148 --> 00:11:23.215 FIRST OF ALL, TO YOUR LAST QUESTION I WOULD RATHER GO TO PRELIMINARY HEARING BY 135 00:11:23.215 --> 00:11:29.148 JUDGES RATHER THAN GRAND JURORS, BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE PET AT THIS TIME 136 00:11:29.148 --> 00:11:32.786 JURIES, WOOEFR VIGILANCE IN EVERY STEP OF THE PROCEEDINGS SO EVERY MORNING WHEN 137 00:11:32.786 --> 00:11:38.015 THE JURORS COME IN JUDGES ROUTINELY VOIR DIRE THOSE GRAND JURORS ABOUT WHETHER 138 00:11:38.015 --> 00:11:43.407 THERE WERE ANY ACCEPTANCE, I ACCEPT THE PROPOSITION THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE THEM AT 139 00:11:43.407 --> 00:11:48.290 THEIR WORD BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITY 140 00:11:48.290 --> 00:11:55.349 TO UNDERSTAND WLNLTD THEY HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO PERHAPS SHOESHL MEDIA ACCOUNTS OF 141 00:11:55.349 --> 00:12:00.732 TRIALS AS THEY ARE ONGOING AN WE ROUTINELY AN HAVE MULTIPLE EXAMPLES OF THAT 142 00:12:00.732 --> 00:12:05.919 SORT OF ACTIVITY TAKING PLACE. IN SOME WAYS ES IT HAS LED TO MISS TRIALS. IT IS 143 00:12:05.919 --> 00:12:09.448 NOT UNUSUAL. IT IS NOT SO OUT OF THE ORDINARY -- JUSTICE 144 00:12:09.448 --> 00:12:16.868 ALBIN: LISTEN, YOU HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE, I DON'T THINK JAEN JOEN ONE 145 00:12:16.868 --> 00:12:21.463 WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE SYSTEM OF PETIT JURY AN GRAND JURY IS PERFECT THERE 146 00:12:21.463 --> 00:12:26.166 WILL ALWAYS BE ABUSE ES, HERE AND THERE, I AM NOT SUGGESTING WIDESPREAD, BUT THAT IS 147 00:12:26.166 --> 00:12:33.630 TYPICALLY NOT AN ARGUMENT TO ABANDON THE ENTIRE PROCESS AND NOBODY -- SO 148 00:12:33.630 --> 00:12:40.340 THAT'S WHAT I AM TRYING TO SEE WHERE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT IS GOING. 149 00:12:40.340 --> 00:12:44.330 JOHN S. FURLONG: TI AM NOT INTERESTED IN ABANDONING THE PROCESS I AM TREFLTD 150 00:12:44.330 --> 00:12:48.431 IN STAYING THE PROCESS UNTIL GRAND JURORS CAN RECONVENE. I DON'T THINK THAT 151 00:12:48.431 --> 00:12:54.060 THAT WAS EVER GOING TO BE AL FULL ON ABANDONMENT OF A CENTURIES LONG PRACTICE. 152 00:12:54.060 --> 00:12:57.628 JUSTICE ALBIN: HOW WOULD WE KNOW, LOOK THE CONSTITUTIONALLY 153 00:12:57.628 --> 00:13:06.592 SHUN HAS THE TO OPERATE IN THE BEST AN WORST OF TIMES, YOU STARTED OFF YOUR BRIEF 154 00:13:06.592 --> 00:13:12.395 BY TALKING ABOUT WORLD WAR II, WHEN WE ENTERED THOSE ORDERS, WE HAD NO IDEA 155 00:13:12.395 --> 00:13:19.059 HOW LONG THE PANLD IS GOING TO LAST AN RIGHT NOUL WE CAN'T FORESEE WITH PERFECT 156 00:13:19.059 --> 00:13:26.971 CLARITY WHEN THINGS WILL GET BACK TO NORMAL SO LIKE WHAT IS WRONG WITH USING 157 00:13:26.971 --> 00:13:35.346 TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE THE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE WORK IN THE WORST OF TIMES. 158 00:13:35.346 --> 00:13:40.022 JOHN S. FURLONG: YOUR QUESTION PRESUPPOSES THAT VIRTUAL JURORS ARE LEGALLY AN 159 00:13:40.022 --> 00:13:47.351 CONSTITUTIONALLY EQUAL TO LIVE JURORS AN MY BIGGEST FEAR HERE IS THAT THE NEXT 160 00:13:47.351 --> 00:13:53.undefined STOP ON THIS STATION, THE NEXT STATION ON THIS ROUTE WILL BE PETIT JURORS PARTICIPATING 162 00:14:00.083 --> 00:14:03.934 WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THAT WOULD EVER THAN CONSISTENT WITH 163 00:14:03.934 --> 00:14:09.628 THE CONSTITUTIONAL NORMS THAT WE HAVE ALL INHABITED FOR OUR ENTIRE LIVES. I 164 00:14:09.628 --> 00:14:16.658 DON'T THINK THAT A PAND OF UNCERTAIN LENGTH JUSTIFIES, AT LEAST AT THIS STAGE THE 165 00:14:16.658 --> 00:14:24.036 UPSOET OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER IN THE NAME OF CASE MANAGEMENT WHICH IS WHAT 166 00:14:24.036 --> 00:14:28.198 I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. THERE IS NOTHING -- THERE IS NOTHING 167 00:14:28.198 --> 00:14:34.045 I HAVE SEEN IN ANY OF THE FILINGS THAT WOULD SUGGEST THAT THERE WAS RUSH OR THAT 168 00:14:34.045 --> 00:14:40.168 THE SYSTEM WAS IN DANGER OF COLLAPSE IF WE DID NOT INSTITUTE VIRTUAL GRAND JURIES 169 00:14:40.168 --> 00:14:49.904 IN MR. VEGA-LARREGUI CASE THERE WAS NO RUSH TO INDICT HIM WITHIN SIX MONTHS BEFORE 170 00:14:49.904 --> 00:14:54.707 THE PAND. I DON'T KNOW WHAT SUDDENLY MADE IT A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL 171 00:14:54.707 --> 00:15:02.397 IMPERATIVE IN ORDER TO KEEP GRAND JURIES SITTING. THE ONLY THING I THINK WE ARE 172 00:15:02.397 --> 00:15:07.459 CONCERNED IS BUILDING THE MAPPING CASES FOR THOSE WHO ARE DEE, DAIRNED AND 173 00:15:07.459 --> 00:15:11.762 CANDIDLY THAT, THIS WOULD NOT BE THAT VEHICLE. JUSTICE ALBIN: 174 00:15:11.762 --> 00:15:16.222 DO NOT OUR COURT RULES TYPICALLY REQUIRE THAT THE CASE BE PRESENTED TO A GRAND 175 00:15:16.222 --> 00:15:20.711 JURY WITHIN SIX MONTHS? JOHN S. FURLONG: I THOUGHT THEY REQUIRED 176 00:15:20.711 --> 00:15:29.042 THE PRESENTATION WITHIN 90 DAYS IF THE PERSON WAS A, THEN 180 IF NOT. 177 00:15:29.042 --> 00:15:32.933 JUSTICE ALBIN: SO THOSE ARE REQUIREMENTS, WE'RE TRYING TO COMPLY 178 00:15:32.933 --> 00:15:39.843 WITH OUR COURT RULES AN ALSO WITH SPEEDY TRIAL REQUIREMENTS AND AS YOU INDICATED, 179 00:15:39.843 --> 00:15:47.393 YOU KNOW, WE STARTED OUT WITH THE PANLD OF UNCERTAIN LENGTH. JOHN 180 00:15:47.393 --> 00:15:51.413 S. FURLONG: THEIR ENOUGH, I WOULD ALSO OBSERVE, THOUGH, THAT THE SPEEDY TRIAL 181 00:15:51.413 --> 00:15:55.860 REQUIREMENT FOR GRAND JURY PRESENTATION FOR NONDETAINED DEFENDANTS HAVE BEEN 182 00:15:55.860 --> 00:16:00.929 ON NORRED IN THE BRIEF FOR YEARS. I MEAN, RARE IS THE CIRCUMSTANCE IN WHICH THE 183 00:16:00.929 --> 00:16:06.785 180 DAY RULE IS COMPLIED WITH. THERE IS A HIT LIST IN EVERY COUNTY FOR THOSE 184 00:16:06.785 --> 00:16:10.953 CASES THAT ARE OLDER THAN SIX MONTHS ON THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS. 185 00:16:10.953 --> 00:16:17.256 I DON'T KNOW WHY WE SUDDENLY BECAME SO CONCERNED THAT UNDETAINED DEFENDANTS MOVING 186 00:16:17.256 --> 00:16:21.077 FORWARD, THERE IS AN ARGUMENT WITH RESPECT TO DETAINED DEFENDANTS WANTING 187 00:16:21.077 --> 00:16:25.896 TO MOVE THEIR CASES FORWARD AND THEIR WILLINGNESS TO CONSENT TO VIRTUAL GRAND JURY, 188 00:16:25.896 --> 00:16:31.212 THAT CERTAINLY DIDN'T EXIST IN MR. VEGA-LARREGUI'S CASE AND INDEED THIS 189 00:16:31.212 --> 00:16:36.570 WOULD BE A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE WHO WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO ARGUE HIS MOTION TO 190 00:16:36.570 --> 00:16:42.600 SUPPRESS. I DON'T MEAN TO GO OFF ON THAT TANK JENLT BUT IN THE OLD DAYS 191 00:16:42.600 --> 00:16:47.103 WHEN JUSTICE ALBIN AND I WERE YOUNG MAN YOU WOULD FILE A MOTION TO SUPPRESS UNDER 192 00:16:47.103 --> 00:16:57.231 RULE 357 THAT'S WHY 345 COMES BEFORE 36 IN THE RULE BOOK NOW YOU ACTUALLY NEED 193 00:16:57.231 --> 00:16:59.687 AN INDICTMENT IN ORDER TO FILE A MOTION TO SUPPRESS, A MOTION TO SUPPRESS 194 00:16:59.687 --> 00:17:06.672 TO IS A VERY LIKELY TO RESOLVE MR. VEGA-LARREGUI'S CASE SOES, SO IT WOULD HAVE 195 00:17:06.672 --> 00:17:11.225 BEEN INTERESTED IN HIS TO MOVER FORWARD, I DID NOT WANT TO CHOOSE BETWEEN 196 00:17:11.225 --> 00:17:16.206 TWO COMPETING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS R DO I WANT A LIVE GRAND JUROR DO I WANT TO 197 00:17:16.206 --> 00:17:20.379 MOVE FORWARD WITH MY MOTION TO SUPPRESS, THE ANSWER IS YES, TO BOTH. 198 00:17:20.379 --> 00:17:24.969 LOOK, THIS WAS, AS I SAID, THERE WAS A RECORD BELOW THAT WAS INCOMPLETE WHEN THE 199 00:17:24.969 --> 00:17:31.352 MOTION WAS FILED, BUT I HAD MY SUSPICIONS BECAUSE OF CASES THAT ARE PROBABLE 200 00:17:31.352 --> 00:17:38.044 BLEE NOT RELEVANT TO THIS ARGUMENT SO IT LEAVES ME IN THE VACUUM OF ARGUING A SPECULATE 201 00:17:38.044 --> 00:17:42.699 I HAVE ENVIRONMENT AND I RESPECT THE OVERALL THEORY THAT THE CRIMINAL 202 00:17:42.699 --> 00:17:47.470 JUSTICE SYSTEM MUST CONTINUE AND THAT THE PAND WAS INTERFERING IN THAT PROCESS, 203 00:17:47.470 --> 00:17:53.887 BUT THERE WAS NOTHING TELL LESS MAT PARTICULAR ABOUT GRAND JURY PRESENTATIONS 204 00:17:53.887 --> 00:17:58.690 AS OPPOSED TO JURY TRIALS THAT THE GRAND JURORS HAD TO MOVE ON THAT WE HAD 205 00:17:58.690 --> 00:18:03.082 TO KEEM INDICTMENTS COMING, WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE PROEBL WITH HAVING PROEBL CAUSE 206 00:18:03.082 --> 00:18:08.505 HERE AND DETENTION HEARINGS ON RECONSIDERATION. IT IS IN EVERYONE'S 207 00:18:08.505 --> 00:18:14.098 INTEREST TO, YOU KNOW, THE COURT COULD -- I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO PENALTIES BUT 208 00:18:14.098 --> 00:18:21.953 THE BOTTOM LINE WOULD BE IF WE GET ROBUST DISCOVERY AND A PRELIMINARY HEARING, 209 00:18:21.953 --> 00:18:29.571 WE WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO LITIGATE THE ISSUES OR ACTUALLY WORK ON THE RESOLUTION 210 00:18:29.571 --> 00:18:35.358 TO GRAND JURY REACTIONS. JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: MR. FURLONG, 211 00:18:35.358 --> 00:18:39.422 DO YOU CONCEDE THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LETTER HOR IN THE EFFECT OF THE 212 00:18:39.422 --> 00:18:47.853 COURT'S ORDERS THAT HAVE ALTERED THE CRITERIA FOR GRAND JURY SERVICE? 213 00:18:47.853 --> 00:18:52.354 JOHN S. FURLONG: MY ANSWER IS NO, IT IS A STRAIGHT NO BUT I RECOGNIZE THAT 214 00:18:52.354 --> 00:18:59.139 AMICUS HAVE TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW JUST TO PUT THEIR MINDS AT EASE, I REPRESENTED 215 00:18:59.139 --> 00:19:06.081 A BAIL BOND COMPANY FOR AN EXCESS EXERCISE OF RULE MAKE HANDGUN AUTHORITY SO I 216 00:19:06.081 --> 00:19:10.230 AM WELL VERSED IN WHY THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS NO. I DON'T THINK IN ANY 217 00:19:10.230 --> 00:19:17.125 AMENDMENT -- THERE HAS BEEN NO JUDICIAL SURGERY OR AMENDMENT THO A STATUTORY 218 00:19:17.125 --> 00:19:19.844 REQUIREMENT TO GRAND JURY I COMPLETELY CONCUR. JUSTICE LA 219 00:19:19.844 --> 00:19:26.179 VECCHIA: AND MY QUESTION SAID NOT JUST LITERALLY, BUT ALSO IN EFFECT. 220 00:19:26.179 --> 00:19:29.241 JOHN S. FURLONG: THAT'S A TOUGHER QUESTION. JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: 221 00:19:29.241 --> 00:19:34.357 WELL, NOT ONE JUROR HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FOR TECHNOLOGICAL REASONS OVER THE LAST 222 00:19:34.357 --> 00:19:36.667 SEVERAL MONTHS. JOHN S. FURLONG: FIRST OF ALL, I RECOGNIZED 223 00:19:36.667 --> 00:19:43.122 AND REVIEWED JUDGE GRANT'S M Os AND EFFORTS TO MAKE SURE THE TECHNOLOGY 224 00:19:43.122 --> 00:19:49.536 AND CASE SPACE WAS AVAILABLE TO EVERY PROSPECTIVE GRAND JURORS, I ALSO SAW THE 225 00:19:49.536 --> 00:19:54.200 NUMBERS OF GRAND JURORS WHO FAILED TO APPEAR IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS, I WOULD 226 00:19:54.200 --> 00:20:00.413 START THERE THE NUMBERS SEEMED TO BE DRAMATICALLY GREATER BUT NOT RE, 227 00:20:00.413 --> 00:20:04.920 UNPREDICTABLE, I AM SURE A LOT OF PEOPLE WEREN'T SPONLDING TO SUMMONSES FOR ANY 228 00:20:04.920 --> 00:20:09.866 NUMBER OF REASONS. I ALSO THINKS WHEN IT COMES TO TECHNOLOGICAL 229 00:20:09.866 --> 00:20:15.651 INEPTITUDE AND USE MYSELF AS EXHIBIT A I AM NOT ONE WHO IS GOING TO RAISE MY HAND 230 00:20:15.651 --> 00:20:22.302 AND SAY I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING SO I AM NOT AWARE IF PEOPLE WOULD SAY 231 00:20:22.302 --> 00:20:26.216 THEY DON'T HAVE A PROEBL WHEN THEY IN FACT DID HAVE A PROEBL. 232 00:20:26.216 --> 00:20:31.464 JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF THAT IN THIS INSTANCE. THE FIVE PEOPLE 233 00:20:31.464 --> 00:20:36.723 WHO WANTED SOME TECHNOLOGICAL ASSISTANCE RECEIVED IT AN EVERYONE WAS WILLING 234 00:20:36.723 --> 00:20:42.188 TO PROCEED, CORRECT SFR? JOHN S. FURLONG: YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A 235 00:20:42.188 --> 00:20:45.837 RECORD THAT I HAD DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE, HAD I HAD AN 236 00:20:45.837 --> 00:20:49.559 OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE THE RECORD ON MY OWN I AM SURE I WOULD HAVE EXPLORED THAT 237 00:20:49.559 --> 00:20:55.203 TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY AND I MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAND YOUR HONOR, A, 238 00:20:55.203 --> 00:20:59.685 SOMETHING THAT SAYS I DON'T KNOW AND I CONCUR THAT I AM IN A SPECULATE I HAVE 239 00:20:59.685 --> 00:21:03.346 ENVIRONMENT. JUSTICE ALBIN: YOU'RE NOT IN A SPEKTS I HAVE 240 00:21:03.346 --> 00:21:07.593 ENVIRONMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE SELECTION OF YOUR GRAND JURY, YOUR GRAND JURY WAS 241 00:21:07.593 --> 00:21:17.921 SELECTED PREPAND UNDER THE SAME RULES AND THE SAME PRACTICES THAT EXISTED BEFORE 242 00:21:17.921 --> 00:21:23.980 THE PAND, CORRECT. JOHN S. FURLONG: OH, YES, BUT THEN THE PAND 243 00:21:23.980 --> 00:21:27.779 DID EXIST AND I REASONABLY ASSUME THAT THEY THEN HAD TO REACH OUT TO EVERYONE 244 00:21:27.779 --> 00:21:33.397 AGAIN TO FIND OUT WHAT THEIR TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITIES WERE SO IT'S A HYBRID BUT 245 00:21:33.397 --> 00:21:38.839 THE ANSWER TO YOUR HONOR'S QUESTION IS YES. CHIEF JUSTICE 246 00:21:38.839 --> 00:21:41.909 RABNER: IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD TLIEK TO ADD ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE? 247 00:21:41.909 --> 00:21:45.637 JOHN S. FURLONG: NOT FOR ME, YOUR HONOR, BUT THAUVENG FOR YOUR 248 00:21:45.637 --> 00:21:49.066 TIME. THE COURT: THAUVENGS, THAUNG, WE WILL HAVE YOU BACK FOR 249 00:21:49.066 --> 00:21:52.980 REBUTTAL, MR. ADD DAMS. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: THAUNG, MAY IT PLEASE 250 00:21:52.980 --> 00:21:58.039 THE COURT, CHIEF JUSTICE ANL ASSOCIATE JUS SIS ES OF THE COURT AN COUNSEL, 251 00:21:58.039 --> 00:22:01.334 ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS OF NEW JERSEY I APPEAR 252 00:22:01.334 --> 00:22:05.425 BEFORE YOU TODAY TO RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THE VIRTUAL GRAND JURY PROGRAM 253 00:22:05.425 --> 00:22:11.817 IS ONE OF THE MOST CRITICAL THREATS TO OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND TO PRESUMED 254 00:22:11.817 --> 00:22:19.126 INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE PANDZ THAT IS UNDERWAY AT THIS 255 00:22:19.126 --> 00:22:24.316 POINT IN TIME. RESPECTFULLY THE USE OF VIRTUAL GRAND JURIES HAS 256 00:22:24.316 --> 00:22:30.037 CREATED A STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCY IN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. THAT STRUCTURAL 257 00:22:30.037 --> 00:22:36.987 DEFICIENCY HAS LED TO CASES LIKE THIS ONE WHERE WE HAVE A REASON BASED QUESTION 258 00:22:36.987 --> 00:22:41.361 WHETHER THERE IS IF YOU UNDERSTAND MENT AT THAT TIME FAIRNESS IN A GRAND JURY PROCESS 259 00:22:41.361 --> 00:22:46.797 AND THAT IS THAT MUCH EVIDENT FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF GRAND JURIES IN THIS 260 00:22:46.797 --> 00:22:52.345 CASE. FROM THE OUTSET, YOUR HONORS, THE ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE 261 00:22:52.345 --> 00:22:57.870 LAWYERS BELIEVE THAT THE COURTS IN TENGZ IN INSTITUTING THE VIRTUAL GRAND JURY PROGRAM 262 00:22:57.870 --> 00:23:02.805 WERE ENTIRELY NOBLE. WE ARE FACING A ONCE IN A LIFETIME CHALLENGE, THERE IS 263 00:23:02.805 --> 00:23:06.340 NO QUESTION AND THERE WILL BE NO SUGGESTION THAT WE ARE NOT. 264 00:23:06.340 --> 00:23:13.206 THE COURT COULD NOT SIT BACK AND DO NOTHING, BUT HUMAN BEINGS STILL HAVE FUND 265 00:23:13.206 --> 00:23:18.817 AMENTAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS THAT OUR GRAND JURY SYSTEM PROVIDES AND THE 266 00:23:18.817 --> 00:23:26.608 COURT HAS CREATED SO MANY INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO THE OTHER COUNTS WE HAVE FACED 267 00:23:26.608 --> 00:23:35.423 AS A RESULT OF THIS PAND AND THE COURTS ORDERS ARE LEGION, AND I SUBMIT, LEADERSHIP 268 00:23:35.423 --> 00:23:41.082 AND INGENUITY IN THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX IN THE FACE OF THIS CHALLENGE, 269 00:23:41.082 --> 00:23:47.326 BUT LIKE THOSE ISSUES, THIS ONE REQUIRES AN EQUAL LEGAL BOLD AND INNOVATIVE SOLUTION. 270 00:23:47.326 --> 00:23:51.718 OUR COURTS HAVE A LONG AND STORE READ TRADITION WITH THE BENEFIT 271 00:23:51.718 --> 00:23:58.291 OF REFLECTION, HINDSIGHT AND PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANTLY A WELL ESTABLISHED RECORD 272 00:23:58.291 --> 00:24:06.832 OF NOT HES SIT TATH TO REVERSE COURTS, TO REVERSE COURSE WHEN IT IS CLEAR THAT 273 00:24:06.832 --> 00:24:12.984 THERE HAVE BEEN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. THE COURT: MR. 274 00:24:12.984 --> 00:24:17.295 AD, FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING BUT WE ARE HERE POSITIVE A CONSTITUTIONAL 275 00:24:17.295 --> 00:24:22.182 CHALLENGE, COULD YOU ARLT FOR US WHAT ARE THE CONSTITUTIONAL FLAWS WITH THE PROCESS 276 00:24:22.182 --> 00:24:26.719 THAT EXISTS. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: SERL, YOUR HONOR, THEY ARE 277 00:24:26.719 --> 00:24:32.013 THREEFOLD, FIRST, VIRTUAL GRAND JURIES VIOLATE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF THE CRIMINALLY 278 00:24:32.013 --> 00:24:36.401 ACCUSED ON THE SAME IF YOU UNDERSTAND MENT AT THAT TIME FAIRNESS ISSUES THAT WERE 279 00:24:36.401 --> 00:24:41.352 ADDRESSED BY MR. FURL. SECONDLY, THE UNEVEN APPLICATION OF THE 280 00:24:41.352 --> 00:24:46.125 VIRTUAL GRAND JURY PROCESS THROUGHOUT NEW JERSEY, WE HAVE COUNTIES THAT ARE USING 281 00:24:46.125 --> 00:24:51.388 IT AN SOME THAT ARE NOT, VIOLATES THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 282 00:24:51.388 --> 00:24:54.824 CONSTITUTION. AND FINALLY AS IT RELATES TO THE SPRGS OF POURS, 283 00:24:54.824 --> 00:24:58.923 THE ORGANIZATION WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THE VIRTUAL GRAND JURY PROGRAM 284 00:24:58.923 --> 00:25:05.754 CONSTITUTES A WHOLESALE JUDICIAL REFORMATION OF A PRODUCT TO THE LEGISLATURE 285 00:25:05.754 --> 00:25:11.662 WITHOUT A TRVRS AS I BEFORE IT AN FOR THOSE REASONS IT TAKES A DRAMATIC LEAP 286 00:25:11.662 --> 00:25:18.087 FROM THIS COURT'S JURISPRUDENCE, NAMELY DEL SEEN KNOW, MURPHY, HOEG BEGAN AND SHAU 287 00:25:18.087 --> 00:25:23.665 AS IT RELATES THE ISSUES OF FAIRNESS AN INTEGRITY WHICH WERE EXCLUSIVELY 288 00:25:23.665 --> 00:25:28.547 THE PROVINCE OF THIS COURT BEFORE THE WHOLESALE REFORMATION. 289 00:25:28.547 --> 00:25:33.718 NOW, AS IT RELATES TO THAT LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AN TO ADDRESS EACH OF 290 00:25:33.718 --> 00:25:37.927 THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES SEPARATELY, AS IT RELATES TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE 291 00:25:37.927 --> 00:25:42.253 COURT OF DUE PROCESS, THERE ARE REALLY THREE ISSUES THAT ARISE FROM VIRTUAL 292 00:25:42.253 --> 00:25:47.903 GRAND JURY PROCESS, NO. 1, AS ADDRESSED BY SOME OF THE JUSTICE ES IN THEIR QUESTIONING 293 00:25:47.903 --> 00:25:54.169 OF MR. FURLONG, THERE IS INDEED A DIGITAL BLANK IN THE STATE. THERE IS 294 00:25:54.169 --> 00:26:00.729 THE VS AND THE HAVE NOT, THOSE WITH RE, ROBUST INTERNET AND ALL THE TECHNOLOGY 295 00:26:00.729 --> 00:26:05.661 THAT ALLOWS US TO COME BEFORE YOU TODAY AND THOSE THAT DO NOT. 296 00:26:05.661 --> 00:26:09.540 SECONDLY -- JUSTICE ALBIN: MAY I STOP YOU FOR A MOMENT. 297 00:26:09.540 --> 00:26:16.047 YOU ARE SPEAKING IN GRANLD GENERALITIES. WE HAVE A CASE IN TROVS AS I BEFORE 298 00:26:16.047 --> 00:26:24.558 US SO TELL US ABOUT THE DIGITAL DIVIDE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND WHAT EVIDENCE 299 00:26:24.558 --> 00:26:31.965 DO YOU HAVE TO SUGGEST THAT THE GRAND JURY THAT SAT ON THIS CASE WAS UNE 300 00:26:31.965 --> 00:26:40.233 QUAL TO THE TASK OF USING TECHNOLOGY TO SERVE AS FAITHFUL GRAND JURORS. 301 00:26:40.233 --> 00:26:44.647 MATTHEW S. ADAMS: WELL, WE HAVE, JUSTICE ALBIN, A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDING 302 00:26:44.647 --> 00:26:49.277 WHICH WAS FILED UNDERSTAND SEAL WITH THE COURT WHICH I WOULD RESPECTFULLY 303 00:26:49.277 --> 00:26:55.624 SUBMIT IS REPLETE WITH GLARING DEFICIENCIES ASSOCIATED WITH WHETHER PEOPLE ARE 304 00:26:55.624 --> 00:27:03.649 ABLE TO HEAR AND SEE AND IN NO LESS THAN HALF A DOZEN OR SO PAGES THE ASSISTANT 305 00:27:03.649 --> 00:27:09.826 PROSECUTOR IS CALLED UPON TO SAY THINGS LIKE, AND AT THIS POINT EVERYBODY CAN HEAR AND 306 00:27:09.826 --> 00:27:19.080 SEE ME CLEARLY, CORRECT, ONLY FOR THE TRANSCRIPT TO REFLECT. 307 00:27:19.080 --> 00:27:23.136 (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) THE ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR AT POINTS DOES TAKE GREAT PAINS 308 00:27:23.136 --> 00:27:27.412 TO TRY TO CREATE A RECORD SAYING THINGS LIKE I SEE YOU NODDING YOUR HEAD 309 00:27:27.412 --> 00:27:31.854 BUT IN OTHER INSTANCES WHERE, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE IS A REQUEST FOR MEMBERS OF THE 310 00:27:31.854 --> 00:27:37.465 GRAND JURY TO RAISE THEIR HANDS AND HAVE THINGS REREAD LIKE THE LAW, THE 311 00:27:37.465 --> 00:27:42.680 APPLICABLE LAW OR AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION OR ASK QUESTIONS BOTH ABOUT THE PROCESS 312 00:27:42.680 --> 00:27:48.767 AN THE SUBSTANCE, THERE IS, AGAIN, INDICATIONS OF. (NO 313 00:27:48.767 --> 00:27:52.043 AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT, 314 00:27:52.043 --> 00:27:56.831 MR. ADD DAMS, WE RELY IN NORMAL GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS FOR GRAND JURORS TO AFFIRM 315 00:27:56.831 --> 00:28:01.525 ATIVELY SPEAK UP AND SAY THEY HAVE A PROEBL. WE HAVE A SCENARIO HERE WHERE 316 00:28:01.525 --> 00:28:05.530 THE PROSECUTOR IS VIEWING THE GRAND JURORS ANL ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT CONFUSION 317 00:28:05.530 --> 00:28:12.612 OR INABILITY TO COMMUNICATE THAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED TO THEM AND 318 00:28:12.612 --> 00:28:18.003 TESTED AND HE IS INDICATING OR SHE IS INDICATED THAT THERE IS NO RESPONSE. IT IS 319 00:28:18.003 --> 00:28:24.271 THE SAME IN EE KWIFR VAL LENS SEE IN TERMS OF THE GRAND JURORS ABILITIES TO 320 00:28:24.271 --> 00:28:27.539 DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY HAVE A QUESTION OR PROEBL WITH THE COMMUNICATION OR THE CONTENTS 321 00:28:27.539 --> 00:28:32.832 OF THE MATERIAL. TRUE, IT'S A DIFFERENT FORM OF COMMUNICATION, BUT YOU'RE NOT 322 00:28:32.832 --> 00:28:40.027 GETTING TO THE HEART OF SHOWING AN ACTUAL PROEBL MERELY BECAUSE THE PROSECUTOR 323 00:28:40.027 --> 00:28:46.945 IS RESPONDING THE WAY SLEE SHE IS ON SHE IS ON THIS RECORD. 324 00:28:46.945 --> 00:28:49.817 MATTHEW S. ADAMS: I WOULD SMEKT FLEE DISAGREE, JUSTICE LA VECCHIA AND FOR THE 325 00:28:49.817 --> 00:28:52.731 FOLLOWING REASON, AT A POINT IN TIME ONE OF THOSE INQUIRIES BY TS ASSISTANT 326 00:28:52.731 --> 00:28:59.089 PROSECUTOR IS CAN YOU HEAR ME, CAN YOU HEAR ME, WHEN WE'RE IN PERSON, IF I AM SITTING 327 00:28:59.089 --> 00:29:03.238 IN THE SAME ROOM WITH SOMEBODY, UNLESS THEY HAVE A HEARING IMPAIRMENT WHICH 328 00:29:03.238 --> 00:29:07.535 WE WOULD TENDS TO KNOW BEFOREHAND WITH RESPECT TO THEIR JURY SERVICE I WOULD HAVE 329 00:29:07.535 --> 00:29:11.254 THE ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE WITH SOMEBODY, THEY COULD SEE MY LIPS MOVING 330 00:29:11.254 --> 00:29:16.556 AND LOW AND BEHOLD I WOULD BE ABLE TO ASSESS WHETHER THEY CAN HEAR ME P ON THE 331 00:29:16.556 --> 00:29:24.057 STRENGTH OF THE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT WHEN THAT QUESTION IS POSITED -- 332 00:29:24.057 --> 00:29:28.477 JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: WEREN'T THEY INITIALLY GIVEN DIRECTIONS IN HOW TO 333 00:29:28.477 --> 00:29:33.852 COMMUNICATE A LACK OF ABILITY TO HEAR AND THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY TESTED PRIOR TO 334 00:29:33.852 --> 00:29:40.153 THE -- WHEN THEY WERE SO BOARD AN SET UP. THESE WERE NOT JURORS WHO WERE 335 00:29:40.153 --> 00:29:44.248 HANDLING THEIR FIRST CASE EITHER. THEY HAD ALREADY CONDUCTED SEVERAL PROCEEDINGS 336 00:29:44.248 --> 00:29:49.225 BEFORE THIS ONE SO THEY WERE EXPERIENCED SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING 337 00:29:49.225 --> 00:29:55.063 WITH THE SPKS ON THE RESPONSE THAT YOU'RE FOCUSED ON AT THIS POINT T CLOP UP TOP 338 00:29:55.063 --> 00:29:58.236 SPECULATION CLOP. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD 339 00:29:58.236 --> 00:30:03.698 RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THE UNKNOWNS THAT EXIST IN THIS RECORD WOULD NOT BE UNKNOWNS 340 00:30:03.698 --> 00:30:07.909 IN AN IN PERSON PROCEEDING AND THE REASON THAT -- JUSTICE 341 00:30:07.909 --> 00:30:11.961 FERNANDEZ-VINA: COUNSEL, WHEN YOU ARE LIVE AND IF I AM SPEAKING, UNLESS SOMEONE 342 00:30:11.961 --> 00:30:16.490 HAS AN IMPAIRMENT I KNOW THAT THEY CAN HEAR ME, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THEY 343 00:30:16.490 --> 00:30:22.551 ARE LISTENING, MAYBE JUROR NO. 12 IS PREOCCUPIED WITH SOMETHING AND HASN'T HEARD 344 00:30:22.551 --> 00:30:26.357 YOU. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND THE PROSECUTOR ASKING CAN YOU 345 00:30:26.357 --> 00:30:31.889 HEAR ME TO ENSURE HAVEN'T YOU DONE THAT AT A TRIAL OR DOES YOUR VOICE CARRY SO MUCH 346 00:30:31.889 --> 00:30:35.005 OR HAVE YOU ALWAYS BEEN TOLD PEOPLE CAN HEAR YOU. MATTHEW S. 347 00:30:35.005 --> 00:30:39.796 ADAMS: I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT I AM TOO LOUD YOUR HONOR, BUT PUTTING THAT ASIDE, 348 00:30:39.796 --> 00:30:44.971 JUSTICE, I WOULD SFEKT FLEE SUBMIT THAT THERE ARE THE INTRODUCTION OF TWO 349 00:30:44.971 --> 00:30:50.055 SEPARATE VARIABLES THAT CREATE THIS PROEBL, THAT IS THE AUDIO CONNECTION AND THE 350 00:30:50.055 --> 00:30:56.484 VIDEO CONNECTION AND HOW MANY TIMES THROUGH THE COURSE OF THIS PROCESS, 351 00:30:56.484 --> 00:31:03.222 THIS YEAR LONG PROCESS HAVE WE BEEN ON ONE TF THESE ZOOM MEETHS AND STARTED TO 352 00:31:03.222 --> 00:31:08.969 TALK WHILE WE'RE ON MUTE, IT HAPPENED TO ME JUST THIS MORNING WHILE WE WERE 353 00:31:08.969 --> 00:31:13.504 COMMUNICATING AND THE RECORD IS DEFICIENT. THE RECORD IS ILLUSTRATIVE NOT FOR WHAT 354 00:31:13.504 --> 00:31:18.022 IT PRESENTS, BUT FOR WHAT IT DOES NOT PRESENT AND I SFEKT FLEE -- 355 00:31:18.022 --> 00:31:22.421 JUSTICE ALBIN: SO, COUNSEL, EVEN -- LOOK, I AM NOT SAYING THAT THIS TRANSCRIPT 356 00:31:22.421 --> 00:31:28.452 COULDN'T BE A LITTLE BETTER, BUT I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE IS THE 357 00:31:28.452 --> 00:31:34.096 DIGITAL DIVIDE BECAUSE YOU'RE MAKING A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE SO EVEN IN 358 00:31:34.096 --> 00:31:40.760 THE CASES WHERE YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT CAN I SEE A SHOW OF HANDS, DOES ANYONE HAVE 359 00:31:40.760 --> 00:31:46.276 AN ISSUE, IN THE NEXT HEARING, THE PROSECUTOR OR THE FOREPERSON CAN SAY, 360 00:31:46.276 --> 00:31:53.338 OKAY, VERBALLY TELL US THAT YOU'VE HEARD IT. I MEAN H THAT COULD BE DONE ELECTRONIC 361 00:31:53.338 --> 00:31:59.466 LY SO I KNOW THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, PICK APART THIS PARTICULAR 362 00:31:59.466 --> 00:32:05.023 TRIMENT, BUT I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT WHY THIS PROCESS 363 00:32:05.023 --> 00:32:13.967 IS DEFICIENT AND WHY IT CANNOT OPERATE JUST AS WELL AS IN PERSON, LIKE IN 364 00:32:13.967 --> 00:32:20.784 AN IN PERSON GRAND JURY, THE PROSECUTOR GENERALLY WILL SAY, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY 365 00:32:20.784 --> 00:32:27.687 QUESTIONS, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE 23 GRAND JURORS TO SAY NO, NO, NO, NO, THAT'S 366 00:32:27.687 --> 00:32:36.692 ENOUGH, THE SILENCE TYPICALLY DOES IT. SO TRY AN RESPOND TO THOSE INQUIRIES, GO 367 00:32:36.692 --> 00:32:38.671 AHEAD. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: YES, YOUR HONOR, JUSTICE ALBIN, 368 00:32:38.671 --> 00:32:45.809 I WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT IN THE IN PERSON ENVIRONMENT, IT WOULD BE INCUMBENT 369 00:32:45.809 --> 00:32:50.445 UPON THE PROSECUTOR PRESENTING TO THE GRAND JURY TO SAY HAVING SEEN NO 370 00:32:50.445 --> 00:32:55.467 HANDS, MAKE THE RECORD, THE PROSECUTOR IN THIS INSTANCE, WOEFULLY -- 371 00:32:55.467 --> 00:32:59.960 JUSTICE ALBIN: IT IS NOT JUST SEEING NO HANDS. LOOK, I WAS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY, 372 00:32:59.960 --> 00:33:03.724 I WAS A PROSECUTOR, AND I MREED CASES TO THE GRAND JURY, THE PROSECUTOR, 373 00:33:03.724 --> 00:33:09.207 WILL SAY, DO THE GRAND JURORS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, THERE BEING NO QUESTIONS, AND 374 00:33:09.207 --> 00:33:14.913 THAT'S IT, IT'S A SILENCE WHICH IS THE ANSWER IN HM CASES, AM I MISTAKEN 375 00:33:14.913 --> 00:33:17.304 ABOUT THAT. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: WHEN YOU'RE IN PERSON YOU CAN 376 00:33:17.304 --> 00:33:21.687 TAKE THAT SILENCE AS AN ANSWER AND THEN MAKE YOUR RECORD BUT WHEN YOU HAVE DUAL 377 00:33:21.687 --> 00:33:26.069 VARIABLES OF AN AUDIO AND VIDEO CONNECTION THAT ARE IN BETWEEN THE COMMUNICATION 378 00:33:26.069 --> 00:33:30.015 STREAM LIKE THEY ARE WITH YOU AND I RIGHT NOW THAT IS THE INHERENT ISSUE 379 00:33:30.015 --> 00:33:34.752 BECAUSE YOU'RE IN PERSON, YOU CAN PICK UP ON THE NONVERBAL CLUE, YOU CAN TAKE AT THIS 380 00:33:34.752 --> 00:33:38.402 TIME FOR AN ANSWER AN YOU CAN MAKE THE RECORD, BUT IN CIRCUMSTANCES -- 381 00:33:38.402 --> 00:33:41.292 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: MR. DOHERTY, MR. ADAMS, ARE YOU SUGGESTING 382 00:33:41.292 --> 00:33:44.851 THAT YOU CAN'T DO THAT OVER ASSUME. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: IT 383 00:33:44.851 --> 00:33:47.445 WASN'T DONE IN THIS CASE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: WE HAVE 384 00:33:47.445 --> 00:33:54.593 HAD ARGUMENTS AT THE SPRM LEL AND WE CAN SEE WHEN SOMEONE IS FROZEN, WE CAN SEE 385 00:33:54.593 --> 00:33:59.904 IF SOMEONE IS MUTD OR WHEN SOMEONE DROPS OFF AND MAKE AN ADJUST MANY ACCORDING 386 00:33:59.904 --> 00:34:03.234 LY. I AM LOOKING AT THIS TRANSCRIPT AN I SEE THE FOREPERSON 387 00:34:03.234 --> 00:34:07.981 ASK NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE, DID ANYONE HAVE TECHNICAL ISSUES WITH HEARING THIS CASE 388 00:34:07.981 --> 00:34:14.339 AN THEN IT SAYS NO AUTOMOBILE SPONLS AN THEN THE FOREPERSON SAYS NO AND TWO 389 00:34:14.339 --> 00:34:20.632 PAGES LAERT, DID ANYONE HAVE ANY TECHNICAL ISSUES WITH THAT VOTE. 390 00:34:20.632 --> 00:34:24.549 (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) AND THE FOREPERSON WHO PRESUMABLY IS LOOKING AT THOSE ON 391 00:34:24.549 --> 00:34:30.703 THE SCREEN SAYS NO, WHAT IS PROBLEMATIC ABOUT THAT? MATTHEW S. 392 00:34:30.703 --> 00:34:35.449 ADAMS: THERE ISN'T SUFFICIENT PROTECTION. WE START WITH THE PREMISE, MR. CHIEF 393 00:34:35.449 --> 00:34:39.894 JUSTICE, THE GRAND JURY IS MORE THAN A RUBBER STAMP. IT IS MORE THAN SIMPLY 394 00:34:39.894 --> 00:34:47.424 A REK NIFRM BY WHICH THE CASE THEN IS KICKED OFF AND COMMENCED AND THAT THERE IS 395 00:34:47.424 --> 00:34:51.933 AN INHERENT ASPECT TO THIS THAT IS TRUE TO HOLD THE STATE TO ITS PROOFS, 396 00:34:51.933 --> 00:34:56.327 ALBEIT AT A LESSER STANDARD, START WITH THAT PREMISE. THE COURT: 397 00:34:56.327 --> 00:35:01.012 I WAS FOLLOWING UP ON YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE AUDIO AND THE VIDEO POTENTIAL PROEBLS 398 00:35:01.012 --> 00:35:07.488 THAT EXIST, WHY IN LIGHT OF THIS RECORD AND THE POINTS IN QUESTION THAT 399 00:35:07.488 --> 00:35:11.332 THE FOREPERSON HAS ASKED DOES THAT SUGGEST THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING UNCONSTITUTIONAL 400 00:35:11.332 --> 00:35:15.300 ABOUT THIS PROCEEDING? MATTHEW S. ADAMS: WELL, THERE IS AN 401 00:35:15.300 --> 00:35:22.283 EXAMPLE AT PAGE 16, CHIEF JUSTICE THAT PRETTY MUCH SUMS IT RIGHT UM, YOU'RE 402 00:35:22.283 --> 00:35:26.992 MUTD, MISH CHEL, YOU'RE SAYING SOMETHING, I CAN'T HEAR YOU. HOW MANY 403 00:35:26.992 --> 00:35:31.165 OTHER TIMES DID THAT HAPPEN? HOW MANY OTHER TIMES WAS ANY NUMBER 404 00:35:31.165 --> 00:35:36.185 OF THE INDIVIDUALS PARTICIPATING IN THIS AS WE ALL ARE AK CUSTOM TD TO, 405 00:35:36.185 --> 00:35:40.838 WE ALL DO IT HAVE OURSELVES MUTD WHEN TRYING TO SAY SOMETHING. 406 00:35:40.838 --> 00:35:44.257 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: IS IT YOUR FEELING THAT THE POTENTIAL ALL ENCOMPASSING QUESTION 407 00:35:44.257 --> 00:35:52.954 THAT FOLLOWS JUST A FEW LINES LAERT WAS INSUFFICIENT TO TRY TO ROUTE THAT 408 00:35:52.954 --> 00:35:56.975 OUT MAD MAD. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: YES, YOUR HONOR. 409 00:35:56.975 --> 00:36:00.933 JUSTICE ALBIN: YOU'RE GIVING THE EXAMPLE IF YOU'RE UNMUTD, LET'S LEAVE A LITTLE 410 00:36:00.933 --> 00:36:05.226 COMMON SENSE HERE, IF I AM MUTD ANLTD I AM ASKING A QUESTION AND YOU DON'T SEEM 411 00:36:05.226 --> 00:36:09.679 TO BE RECOGNIZING THAT I AM ASKING THE QUESTION, I AM PROBABLE BLEE LIKELY TO UNMUTE. 412 00:36:09.679 --> 00:36:18.352 DO YOU THINK THAT THE GRAND JURORS ARE NOT I'M BUED WITH SOME MINIMUM LEVEL 413 00:36:18.352 --> 00:36:23.159 OF COMMON SENSE AN COMMON UNDERSTANDING? MATTHEW S. ADAMS: TO YOUR 414 00:36:23.159 --> 00:36:28.873 POINT, JUSTICE ALBIN, MAKING THEM BE I'M BUED WITH THAT TECHNICAL UNDERSTANDING 415 00:36:28.873 --> 00:36:37.562 IS THE PRECISE EXTRA STAT TORL YA 'ALL REQUIREMENT THAT IS IMPOSED UPON. 416 00:36:37.562 --> 00:36:42.579 JUSTICE ALBIN: YOU DON'T NEED TECHNICAL NO HOW WHEN YOU'RE ON MUTE AN 417 00:36:42.579 --> 00:36:47.009 YOU'RE ASKING A QUESTION AND YOU REALIZE THAT YOUR VOICE ISN'T PROEKTING TO THE 418 00:36:47.009 --> 00:36:51.014 LISTENER, YOU DON'T REAL LEGAL NEED A WHOLE LOT AND I THINK THAT ALL THE 419 00:36:51.014 --> 00:36:57.149 GRAND JURORS KNOW HOW TO UNMUTE. THIS HAPPENS DURING APPELLATE ARGUMENTS, I WILL 420 00:36:57.149 --> 00:37:01.909 BE MUTD, I WILL BE SDG A QUESTION AND I WILL SEE THAT THERE IS NO RESPONSE. 421 00:37:01.909 --> 00:37:09.674 I HAD KNOW TO UNMUTE AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT, I DON'T THINK I'M ANY SMARTER THAN ANY 422 00:37:09.674 --> 00:37:12.169 GRAND JUROR. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD 423 00:37:12.169 --> 00:37:16.748 RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT YOU ARE AN VERY INTELLIGENT MAN AND THAT YOU ARE VERY 424 00:37:16.748 --> 00:37:24.695 AK CUSTOMER STOMD TO UTILIZING ZOOM. THINK ABOUT THIS BEFORE YOU WERE USING THIS 425 00:37:24.695 --> 00:37:28.569 PLATFORM EVERYDAY THINK ABOUT THE LEARNING CURVE TO COME UP TO SPEED AND 426 00:37:28.569 --> 00:37:33.090 YOUR HONOR HAS THE BENEFIT OF THE RESOURCES THAT THE COURT HAS, YOU HAVE IT 427 00:37:33.090 --> 00:37:36.107 PEOPLE. JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS: MR. AD, ONE OF THE 428 00:37:36.107 --> 00:37:41.304 GRAND JURORS WAS GIVEN ONBOARD DISCUSSION AN THEY WERE GIVEN TRAINING AND THEY WERE 429 00:37:41.304 --> 00:37:47.031 ALSO PROVIDED WITH CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THE COURT'S I T STAFF SO IF THEY WERE 430 00:37:47.031 --> 00:37:50.810 HAVING ISSUES THEY COULD MAKE A PHONE CALL AND LET THEM KNOW I AM FROZEN, 431 00:37:50.810 --> 00:37:58.448 THEY ARE FROZEN, I CAN'T HEAR, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE GRAND JURORS WERE PUT IN A 432 00:37:58.448 --> 00:38:02.101 POSITION WHERE THEY HAD THE TRAINING AND THEY ALSO HAD THE ABILITY TO CONTACT 433 00:38:02.101 --> 00:38:07.711 IT STAFF IN ORDER TO OBTAIN ASSISTANCE IF THEY NEEDED IT RIGHT TLEN AND THERE, 434 00:38:07.711 --> 00:38:11.062 IS THAT CORRECT? MATTHEW S. ADAMS: I DON'T TAKE ISSUE WITH 435 00:38:11.062 --> 00:38:16.771 THE REPRESENTATION. THEY HAD ACCESS TO IT STAFF, HOWEVER, THAT IS A FURTHER 436 00:38:16.771 --> 00:38:23.574 EXAMPLE OF HOW THESE EXTRA STAT TORL VARIABLES HAVE CREATED THIS ADDITIONAL 437 00:38:23.574 --> 00:38:27.527 REQUIREMENT TO GRAND JURY SERVICE THAT HERETOFORE HAS NEVER EXISTED IN THE STATE OF NEW 438 00:38:27.527 --> 00:38:30.779 JERSEY, AND THAT IS INHERENT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE. 439 00:38:30.779 --> 00:38:36.628 JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: SO WOULD YOU BE MAKING THE SAME ARGUMENT IF A TRANSLATOR HAD BEEN 440 00:38:36.628 --> 00:38:42.844 PROVIDED FOR A GRAND JUROR. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: I AM SORRY, 441 00:38:42.844 --> 00:38:46.967 JUSTICE LA VECCHIA, I DIDN'T MEAN TO TALK OVER TU THE TECHNOLOGY WAS LAGGING 442 00:38:46.967 --> 00:38:51.365 A LITTLE. JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: PLEASE PROCEED WITH YOUR 443 00:38:51.365 --> 00:38:53.685 ANSWER. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: I WOULD SAY TYPICALLY THE TRAINS 444 00:38:53.685 --> 00:38:57.918 LATE TORE IS IN PERSON AND THERE ISN'T THAT VARIABLE OF STRG TO FURTHER TRANSLATE 445 00:38:57.918 --> 00:39:04.037 TO COMMUNICATION THROUGH THE WIRES BOTH BY VIDEO AND AUDIO AND AGAIN, THAT 446 00:39:04.037 --> 00:39:11.434 VARIABLE THAT HAS INJECTED ITSELF INTO THIS DYNAMIC IS EXACTLY THE CORE ISSUE, 447 00:39:11.434 --> 00:39:16.708 IF YOU ARE STANDING NEXT TO A TRANSLATOR AS IS THE CASE WHEN A CERTIFIED TRANSLATOR 448 00:39:16.708 --> 00:39:21.159 WILL APPEAR IN COURT AFTER HAVING ADMINISTERED THE OATH THAT TRAINS LATE 449 00:39:21.159 --> 00:39:27.714 TORE HAS THE ABILITY TO SAY, SLOW DOWN YOU'RE TALKING TOO FAST OR EVEN GIVE SOMEBODY 450 00:39:27.714 --> 00:39:33.263 A LITTLE NUDGE, SAY WAIT A SECOND I HAVEN'T COMMUNICATED TO COUNSEL AND 451 00:39:33.263 --> 00:39:37.349 THE COURT PRECISELY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: SO 452 00:39:37.349 --> 00:39:42.616 IN LIVE SYSTEMS IT IS ALL RIGHT, BUT IN THIS ONE IT IS FORBIDDEN. 453 00:39:42.616 --> 00:39:45.875 MATTHEW S. ADAMS: I WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN IN PERSON 454 00:39:45.875 --> 00:39:50.542 COMMUNICATION ASSISTANCE AN WHERE YOU HAVE THESE ADDITIONAL VARIABLES THAVR 455 00:39:50.542 --> 00:39:54.794 FLOWED OUT THROUGH THE TRANCESOME, THROUGH THE IN TERRITORY NET THAT REQUIRE THE 456 00:39:54.794 --> 00:40:01.448 AUDIO AND VISUAL SIGNAL TO BE UNINTERRUPTED AN WE DON'T SEE THAT IN THE 457 00:40:01.448 --> 00:40:07.303 STACHT AND INSTEAD WHAT HAS NOW BEEN CREATED AN WHAT THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR 458 00:40:07.303 --> 00:40:13.544 'S ASSOCIATION AGREED WITH US AN SAID THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, UNAMBIGUOUS. 459 00:40:13.544 --> 00:40:16.206 JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: SPEAKING FOR YOUR AGENCY ALONE BECAUSE THAT'S WHO 460 00:40:16.206 --> 00:40:19.746 YOU ARE HERE REPRESENTING, I AM GOING TO ASK YOU THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED 461 00:40:19.746 --> 00:40:25.809 MR. FURLONG, DO YOU THINK OUR ORDERS IN LETTER OR IN EFFECT AMENDED ANY OF THE 462 00:40:25.809 --> 00:40:28.612 CRITERIA FOR SERVICE ON THE GRAND JURY? MATTHEW S. ADAMS: 463 00:40:28.612 --> 00:40:33.152 YES, I DO, YOUR HONOR. JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: PRECISELY HOW? 464 00:40:33.152 --> 00:40:38.172 MATTHEW S. ADAMS: THERE IS NOW AN EXTRA STAT TORL REQUIREMENT THAT THERE 465 00:40:38.172 --> 00:40:44.128 BE A RELIABLE INTERNET CONNECTION, THAT THERE BE A RELIABLE TECHNOLOGICAL 466 00:40:44.128 --> 00:40:49.713 MECHANISM BY WHICH TO TRANSMIT ANL THE TECHNOLOGICAL KNOW HOW. ALL OF THOSE 467 00:40:49.713 --> 00:40:54.138 THREE CRITERIA DO NOT EXIST IN THE COMPREHENSIVE STRUCTURE FOR GRAND JURY 468 00:40:54.138 --> 00:40:57.121 SERVICE THAT WAS ESTABLISH PD BY THE LEGISLATURE. JUSTICE LA 469 00:40:57.121 --> 00:41:00.272 VECCHIA: EVEN THOUGH ALL THREE OF THOSE CRITERIA ARE BEING MANAGED AND ADDRESSED 470 00:41:00.272 --> 00:41:05.448 BY THE JUDICIARY, YOU STILL MAINTAIN THAT TO BE SO? MATTHEW S. 471 00:41:05.448 --> 00:41:09.683 ADAMS: YES, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THE GRAND JURY 472 00:41:09.683 --> 00:41:16.211 PROCESS IS SO SACRED THAT TO HAVE IT BE MANAGED BY THE JUDICIARY AS, IS SIMPLY 473 00:41:16.211 --> 00:41:20.326 INSUFFICIENT. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: WELL, CAN YOU POINT TO 474 00:41:20.326 --> 00:41:27.157 US ANY PROOF THAT THE INTERNET SERVICE, THE PROVISION OF EQUIPMENT WAS SUBPAR? 475 00:41:27.157 --> 00:41:35.437 MATTHEW S. ADAMS: I CAN MAKE A REASONED HYPOTHESIS THAT WHEN 476 00:41:35.437 --> 00:41:40.128 THINGS LIKE I CAN'T HEAR YOU ARE INJECTED INTO THE TRANSCRIPT AS THEY ARE HERE, 477 00:41:40.128 --> 00:41:46.913 OR IN AUTOMOBILE SPONLS ES TO VERY DIRECT QUESTIONS, THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING 478 00:41:46.913 --> 00:41:54.085 RECORD AS TO THE RESPONSE THAT THERE VERY WELL -- A VERY REASONABLE EXPLANATION 479 00:41:54.085 --> 00:41:59.627 FOR THE DEFICIENCIES IN THIS RECORD COULD VERY WELL BE A PRODUCT OF THE 480 00:41:59.627 --> 00:42:04.378 TECHNOLOGY, BUT THE NATURE OF THOSE DEFICIENCIES, UNLESS WE HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, 481 00:42:04.378 --> 00:42:11.635 A RECORDING THAT WE CAN GO BACK TO, WHICH THE ZOOM PLATFORM HAS THE CAPABILITIES 482 00:42:11.635 --> 00:42:17.374 TO ACHIEVE, TO GO BACK AND LOOK IN A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, WE JUST DON'T HAVE 483 00:42:17.374 --> 00:42:21.731 THAT HERE. THE COURT: I DON'T THINK I GOT AN ANSWER TO THE 484 00:42:21.731 --> 00:42:25.930 QUESTION THAT I POSED. WERE TABLETS DISTRIBUTED TO ALL WHO NEEDED 485 00:42:25.930 --> 00:42:28.574 THEM? MATTHEW S. ADAMS: IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, 486 00:42:28.574 --> 00:42:32.085 MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I DON'T KNOW. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: YOU DON'T 487 00:42:32.085 --> 00:42:36.275 KNOW FROM THE RECORD? MATTHEW S. ADAMS: NO, MR. CHIEF JUS 488 00:42:36.275 --> 00:42:39.095 TICE. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: THE CERTIFICATIONS INDICATE THAT 489 00:42:39.095 --> 00:42:44.138 FIVE GRAND JURORS NEEDED TABLETS AND ALL FIVE RECEIVED THEM, DO YOU HAVE CONTRARY 490 00:42:44.138 --> 00:42:47.002 INFORMATION? MATTHEW S. ADAMS: I DO NOT. THE 491 00:42:47.002 --> 00:42:52.193 COURT: SO, ON THIS RECORD, IS THERE ANY PROOF AT ALL THAT GRAND JURORS WHO NEEDED 492 00:42:52.193 --> 00:42:55.424 TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT DID NOT RECEIVE IT? MATTHEW S. ADAMS: 493 00:42:55.424 --> 00:43:04.031 THO THIS RECORD, BASED ON THE CERTIFICATION ABOUT THE NEED FOR EQUIPMENT I 494 00:43:04.031 --> 00:43:08.651 CAN TAKE THE REPRESENTATION ON IT'S FACE THAT FIVE WERE PROVIDED WHEN NEEDED. 495 00:43:08.651 --> 00:43:11.065 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: AND DO YOU DISPUTE THAT THERE WAS TECH 496 00:43:11.065 --> 00:43:14.870 NICAL ASSISTANCE THAT WAS PROVIDED AS NEEDED. MATTHEW S. 497 00:43:14.870 --> 00:43:19.728 ADAMS: I AM NOT SURE HOW IN THE MIDDLE OF A PAND IT STAFF CAN PROVIDE THE LEVEL 498 00:43:19.728 --> 00:43:23.914 OF ASSISTANCE THAT MAY BE NEEDED IF FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WAS A VERY LOW ABILITY 499 00:43:23.914 --> 00:43:29.736 OF TECHNOLOGICAL NO HOW ON THE GRAND JURY, WHICH OBVIOUSLY HAS THE ABILITY, AS 500 00:43:29.736 --> 00:43:37.094 IT IS CALLED THE TECHNICAL DIVIDE TO SHAPE THE GRAND JURY POPULATION. 501 00:43:37.094 --> 00:43:41.020 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: WEREN'T THERE TEST RUNS THAT WERE DONE BASED ON THE RECORD 502 00:43:41.020 --> 00:43:46.011 CHA WE HAVE. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: TEST RUNS TO ESTABLISH THAT 503 00:43:46.011 --> 00:43:51.559 THE IT STAFF WAS ABLE TO SUFFICIENTLY EDUCATE THE USER ABOUT HOW TO ULTIMATELY 504 00:43:51.559 --> 00:43:57.957 USE THE PLATFORM WHEN THERL SITTING ALONE IN THEIR L HOME, THEIR BIRM, THEIR BATH, 505 00:43:57.957 --> 00:44:02.331 BARM, THEIR GARAGE, WHEREVER THEY HAPPEN TO BE AT THE MOMENT, I DON'T SEE 506 00:44:02.331 --> 00:44:07.454 THAT AS THE SAME THING, I SEE IT AS THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS SOME 507 00:44:07.454 --> 00:44:11.152 THE TESTING DONE BUT THE ACCIDENT OR THE COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THAT TESTING 508 00:44:11.152 --> 00:44:23.572 IS UNCLEAR AT THIS POINT. DID WE LOSE THE CHIEF? THE 509 00:44:23.572 --> 00:44:30.239 COURT: OH, NO, I AM STILL HERE. WOULD YOU LIKE THO MOVE ON TO A... 510 00:44:30.239 --> 00:44:33.323 MATTHEW S. ADAMS: YES, IF I MAY, YOUR HONOR, THERE ARE OTHER 511 00:44:33.323 --> 00:44:38.994 -- TWO OTHER REMAINING ISSUES AS IT RELATES TO OUR DUE PROCESS ARGUMENT, IF I 512 00:44:38.994 --> 00:44:44.946 MAY DIRECT SOME COMMENTS TO OUR EQUAL PROCEED TECH SHUN AND OUR SEPARATION 513 00:44:44.946 --> 00:44:51.225 OF POWERS ARGUMENT, INITIALLY, ALSO, WITH RESPECT TO DUE PROCESS WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY 514 00:44:51.225 --> 00:44:56.649 SUBMIT THAT IN ADDITION TO THE TECHNOLOGICAL DIVIDE THAT SECRECY IS 515 00:44:56.649 --> 00:45:02.096 REALLY A TWO-WAY STREET. THE PROSECUTORS, THE COUNTY PROSECUTORS ASSOCIATION AS 516 00:45:02.096 --> 00:45:06.159 IT SEEMS TO HAVE DRAWN THEIR CONCLUSION, THIS IS A QUOTE CONSTITUTIONAL MISTAKE 517 00:45:06.159 --> 00:45:12.211 BASED UPON THE INTERRUPTION OF SECRECY ASSOCIATED WITH, FOR EXAMPLE, PUTTING A 518 00:45:12.211 --> 00:45:17.599 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT IN A VIRTUAL GRAND JURY WHERE SOMEONE EASILY COULD 519 00:45:17.599 --> 00:45:22.914 RECORD OR CAPTURE THE PHOTOGRAPH NOTWITHSTANDING THE OATH, HUMAN NATURE BEING WHAT 520 00:45:22.914 --> 00:45:27.895 IT IS AND AS MR. FURLONG SAID THE ABILITIES TO REMOVE THE DEVICES WHEN 521 00:45:27.895 --> 00:45:33.797 PEOPLE ARE GOING INTO A NFL CORK ACTUALLY HAS THE XABT TO ELIMINATE SOME OF THAT, 522 00:45:33.797 --> 00:45:39.563 BUT SECRECY PLACE AS IMPORTANT A ROLE FOR CRIMINALLY ACCUSED AS -- 523 00:45:39.563 --> 00:45:45.675 JUSTICE ALBIN: MR. AD, YOUR SECRECY ARGUMENT STARTS WITH THE SUPPOSITION THAT THE 524 00:45:45.675 --> 00:45:55.543 GRAND JURORS CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO FOLLOW THEIR OATH SO -- AND -- SO IF 525 00:45:55.543 --> 00:46:01.412 WE ACCEPT THAT ARGUMENT, WE MIGHT AS WELL DISBAND JURIES AND GRAND JURIES ANL NOT 526 00:46:01.412 --> 00:46:09.589 HAVE A JUSTICE SYSTEM BECAUSE, AS INDICATED LERL WITH MR. FURLONG, WE 527 00:46:09.589 --> 00:46:13.571 EXPECT THE JURORS WHEN THEY GO HOME NOT TO DISCUSS THE CASE, NOT TO DO RESEARCH, 528 00:46:13.571 --> 00:46:18.865 NOT DO TO DO ALL THE THINGS THAT THEY ARE INSTRUCTED NOT TO DO AND YET YOU SEEM 529 00:46:18.865 --> 00:46:23.743 TO BE STARTH OUT WITH SOME SORT OF ASSUMPTION THAT GRAND JURORS WILL NOT 530 00:46:23.743 --> 00:46:27.158 FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AND I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE IS THAT COMING FROM? 531 00:46:27.158 --> 00:46:30.868 MATTHEW S. ADAMS: BECAUSE THE PRIEBLT AND THE RISK IS 532 00:46:30.868 --> 00:46:35.996 DRAMATICALLY, DRAMATICALLY INCREASED BY VIRTUE OF THE USE OF THESE TECHNOLOGICAL 533 00:46:35.996 --> 00:46:40.869 NEEDS, JUSTICE ALBIN AND THE REASONS IS BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE IN AN IN PERSON 534 00:46:40.869 --> 00:46:46.079 ENVIRONMENT, EVEN SOCIALLY DISTANCED, EVEN MASKED AS WE WOULD SUBMIT IS AN APPROPRIATE 535 00:46:46.079 --> 00:46:50.603 REMEDY TO DISCONTINUE THIS PROCESS, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY -- THE SHERIFF'S 536 00:46:50.603 --> 00:46:55.516 OFFICERS ARE IN THAT GRAND JURY, IF THEY SEE SOMEBODY ON THAT, THEIR PHONE THEY CAN 537 00:46:55.516 --> 00:46:58.678 TAKE IT AWAY. JUSTICE ALBIN: I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY CAN DO 538 00:46:58.678 --> 00:47:04.376 THAT, BUT SHERIFF'S OFFICERS DON'T FOLLOW PETIT JURORS BACK TO THEIR HOMES TO MAKE 539 00:47:04.376 --> 00:47:07.888 SURE THAT THEY ARE NOT TALKING TO THEIR WIVES AN THEIR FAMILIES AN THEIR 540 00:47:07.888 --> 00:47:11.884 FRIENDS. THEY ARE NOT DOING INDEPENDENT RESEARCH. WE TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORD THAT 541 00:47:11.884 --> 00:47:16.697 THEY ARE NOT DOING THAT AND IF WE DO THAT WITH PETIT JURORS WHY CAN'T WE TAKE AT 542 00:47:16.697 --> 00:47:22.201 THEIR WORD BASED UPON THEIR OATH WHEN GRAND JUROR IS SAYING I AM NOT DOING 543 00:47:22.201 --> 00:47:26.234 RESEARCH, I DON'T HAVE A SMARTPHONE HERE, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OATH 544 00:47:26.234 --> 00:47:30.186 TAKEN BY PA GRAND JUROR AND THE OATH TAKEN BY A PET AT THIS TIME JUROR AND 545 00:47:30.186 --> 00:47:34.279 OUR EXPECTATION THAT THEY WILL FOLLOW THEIR OATHS? MATTHEW S. 546 00:47:34.279 --> 00:47:38.586 ADAMS: JUSTICE ALBIN, I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT IT IS A DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE 547 00:47:38.586 --> 00:47:45.548 OF DEGREES OF RISK. YES, YOU ARE CORRECT, THE PETIT JURY HAS THAT SAME 548 00:47:45.548 --> 00:47:50.734 RISK BUT I WOULD SAY THE RISK IN THE IN HOME GRAND JURY SETHD IS DRAMATICALLY 549 00:47:50.734 --> 00:47:54.649 INCREASED. THERE IS A LEVEL OF COMFORT IN THE HOME. THERE IS A LEVEL OF 550 00:47:54.649 --> 00:48:00.165 ACCESS IN THE HOME. THERE IS A WHOLE POST, HOST OF VARIABLES THAT EXIST IN THE 551 00:48:00.165 --> 00:48:05.974 GRAND JURORS HOME THAT SIMPLY DON'T EXIST IN THE COURTHOUSE. 552 00:48:05.974 --> 00:48:11.615 JUSTICE ALBIN: GRAND JURORS GO HOME, TOO, TO THEIR WIVES, TO THEIR CHILDREN, THEY HAVE 553 00:48:11.615 --> 00:48:16.071 COMPUTER, DO I ASSUME THAT THEY ARE VIOLATING THEIR OATH IN TALKING ABOUT 554 00:48:16.071 --> 00:48:21.271 THE CASE, IN DOING RESEARCH ABOUT THE CASE, DO YOU ASSUME THAT, IS THAT THE 555 00:48:21.271 --> 00:48:24.633 ASSUMPTION THAT YOU MAKE. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: IT IS NOT, JUSTICE 556 00:48:24.633 --> 00:48:29.596 ALBIN. IT IS NOT. THE ARGUMENT RESTS IN THE RELATIVE PROBABILITY OF AN 557 00:48:29.596 --> 00:48:37.417 ISSUE LIKE THAT AND IT BEING DRAMATICALLY INCREASED BY VIRTUE OF THE IN HOME 558 00:48:37.417 --> 00:48:39.670 ENVIRONMENT. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: MR. ADAMS, IN YOUR 559 00:48:39.670 --> 00:48:43.004 EXPERIENCE, YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH SOME GRAND JURY PRESENTATIONS THAT HAVE STENLDZ 560 00:48:43.004 --> 00:48:47.463 STD OVER A PERIOD OF WEEKS, I WOULD IMAGINE? MATTHEW S. 561 00:48:47.463 --> 00:48:50.409 ADAMS: YES, CHIEF. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: DOES THE POSSIBILITY 562 00:48:50.409 --> 00:48:55.740 THAT THE GRAND JUROR WILL GO HOME IN BETWEEN SESSIONS AND SHARE INFORMATION ORLY 563 00:48:55.740 --> 00:48:59.147 SEARCH CREATE A CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERN THERE. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: 564 00:48:59.147 --> 00:49:03.930 I THINK THE CONSTITUTIONAL KERN R CONCERN IS NEVER GONE, CHIEF, BUT I THINK 565 00:49:03.930 --> 00:49:08.358 THE PROBABILITY -- THE COURT: DO YOU THINK STATE GRAND JURIES 566 00:49:08.358 --> 00:49:14.256 THAT MEET IN PERSON PRESENT SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL PROEBLS? 567 00:49:14.256 --> 00:49:20.967 MATTHEW S. ADAMS: NO, I THINK THEY ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL NECESSITY AND THAT 568 00:49:20.967 --> 00:49:27.007 UNDERLIES THE ISSUE OF WHY WE HAVE SO ADAMANTLY DISAGREED WITH THIS PROGRAM. 569 00:49:27.007 --> 00:49:30.182 JUSTICE ALBIN: MAY I FOLLOW UP ON THE CHIEF'S QUESTION, YOU KNOW 570 00:49:30.182 --> 00:49:34.700 THAT THERE ARE INVESTIGATIVE GRAND JURIES ON SINGLE CASES THAT GO ON FOR DAYS ANL 571 00:49:34.700 --> 00:49:41.249 SOMETIMES FOR WEEKS. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PROEBL WITH THEIR GOING HOME, DO YOU. 572 00:49:41.249 --> 00:49:43.467 MATTHEW S. ADAMS: NO, JUSTICE ALBIN. JUSTICE 573 00:49:43.467 --> 00:49:46.475 ALBIN: AND YOU WOULDN'T CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALLY NALT OF THOSE PRESENTATIONS 574 00:49:46.475 --> 00:49:49.551 BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING HOME AND BECAUSE THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY 575 00:49:49.551 --> 00:49:53.702 COULD DO REFRN? MATTHEW S. ADAMS: NOT EXCLUSIVELY ON THE 576 00:49:53.702 --> 00:49:56.929 POSSIBILITY OF DOING RESEARCH, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING WITHIN THE COURT'S CONTROL, 577 00:49:56.929 --> 00:50:02.857 JUSTICE ALBIN, WE ARE TURNING THE PAGE WITH VACCINES, THE COUNTY PROSECUTORS 578 00:50:02.857 --> 00:50:07.154 ASSOCIATION TO MY KNOWLEDGE HAS COME OUT AND SAID THAT THEY HAVE SOCIALLY DISTANCED 579 00:50:07.154 --> 00:50:12.240 LOCATIONS IN ALL -- THE COURT: MR. DOHERTY, MR. ADAMS, FORGIVE 580 00:50:12.240 --> 00:50:15.645 ME, WE ARE HERE ON A LEGAL QUESTION ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALLY NALT OF THE 581 00:50:15.645 --> 00:50:20.502 QUESTION SO I WOULD ASK YOU AN EVERYONE TO TRY TO FOCUS YOUR ARGUMENTS SOLELY ON 582 00:50:20.502 --> 00:50:24.761 THAT ISSUE. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: SERL AND IF I MAY ROUND OUT 583 00:50:24.761 --> 00:50:29.318 THE DUE PROCESS ARGUMENT ANL THAUNG FOR THE COURT'S INDULGENCE, THE FINAL ISSUE 584 00:50:29.318 --> 00:50:36.059 THAT WE HAVE AS TO THIS IDEA OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS REALLY RESOLVED ANL IS 585 00:50:36.059 --> 00:50:42.350 SOMEWHAT RELATED AND MR. FURL TOUCHED ON THIS BUT THE INHERENT GLITCH EE 586 00:50:42.350 --> 00:50:51.657 NESS OF THIS TECHNOLOGY, IT IS NOT PERFECT. I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF HIEP, HYPOTHETICALS 587 00:50:51.657 --> 00:50:56.758 WHERE WE HAVE COMPARED TO THE IN PERSON PROCESS BUT I THINK THERE IS NONE 588 00:50:56.758 --> 00:51:02.021 AMONG US THAT WOULD TAKE ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT IT IS A FAR LESS PERFECT THAN 589 00:51:02.021 --> 00:51:06.548 THE IN PERSON VARIETY AN UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO 590 00:51:06.548 --> 00:51:11.557 THEM SOCIALLY DISTANCED, MASKED, PROPERLY PRECAUTIONED WE SHOULD. 591 00:51:11.557 --> 00:51:17.123 IF THE COURT COULD INDULGE ME ON TWO SEPARATE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, I WOULD 592 00:51:17.123 --> 00:51:21.259 LIKE TO MOVE INTO THE EQUAL PROTECTION ARGUMENT WHICH I THINK IS EQUALLY 593 00:51:21.259 --> 00:51:27.670 IMPORTANT TO THE. AND THAT REALLY RELATES TO THE FACT THAT THIS 594 00:51:27.670 --> 00:51:33.004 DEFENDANT BY LUCK OF THE DRAW WAS SUBJECTED TO THIS LESSER PROGRAM, THIS LESSER 595 00:51:33.004 --> 00:51:39.177 GRAND JURY SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH HE WAS ARRESTED. WHEN THIS WAS 596 00:51:39.177 --> 00:51:47.138 ROLLED OUT, IT WAS OL ROLLED OUT IN TWO PILOT COUNTS, IT WAS ROLLED OUT 597 00:51:47.138 --> 00:51:52.542 ONLY ON THE CONSENT OF THE DEFENDANT, BUT IMMEDIATELY THAT SHIFTED, IT SOON BECAME 598 00:51:52.542 --> 00:51:57.502 MANDATORY AN THEN IT WAS NOT MANDATORY AND THEN IT WAS PAND AGAIN AND THIS 599 00:51:57.502 --> 00:52:04.911 CLASS OF ONE HAS A RIGHT TO UNIFORM APPLICABILITY TFT LAW. THERE REMAINS IN THIS 600 00:52:04.911 --> 00:52:13.178 STATE AS OF THIS DAY, THIS MEANING AT 11 A.M. ON MARCH 15TH, TWUN, TWO COUNTIES 601 00:52:13.178 --> 00:52:20.872 THAT HAVE DONE ENTIRELY ZERO VIRTUAL GRAND JURY INDICTMENTS, VIRTUALLY ZERO GRAND JURY 602 00:52:20.872 --> 00:52:24.298 PRESENTATIONS. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: MR. ADAMS, TODAY IN YOUR 603 00:52:24.298 --> 00:52:28.612 BRIEF YOU TALKED ABOUT THE SELECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM AS A 604 00:52:28.612 --> 00:52:32.218 CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT AND I HEAR YOUR ARGUMENT NOW. UNDER THAT 605 00:52:32.218 --> 00:52:39.969 LOGIC, WAS THE DRUG COURT PROGRAM WHICH LIKEWISE BEGAN IN JUST A FEW COUNTIES 606 00:52:39.969 --> 00:52:47.539 UNCONSTITUTIONAL. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: SELECTIVE APPLICATION 607 00:52:47.539 --> 00:52:53.657 OF THE LAW COULD CONSTITUTE AN EQUAL PROCEED TECH SHUN VIOLATION IN THAT 608 00:52:53.657 --> 00:53:04.920 INSTANCE, SHEEF CHIEF, AS WELL. THE COURT: SO. 609 00:53:04.920 --> 00:53:08.774 MATTHEW S. ADAMS: I THINK THEY CAN FROM AN EQUAL PROCEED TECH SHUN PERSPECTIVE 610 00:53:08.774 --> 00:53:13.195 BECAUSE YOU ARE BASICALLY AT THE WHIM OF LUCK OF THE DRAW THROUGHOUT THE STATE 611 00:53:13.195 --> 00:53:16.657 OF NEW JERSEY DEPENDING UPON WHERE YOU HAPPEN TO BE ARRESTED. 612 00:53:16.657 --> 00:53:22.247 JUSTICE ALBIN: I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS BECAUSE YOU'RE -- LET'S START WITH 613 00:53:22.247 --> 00:53:25.808 THE ASSUMPTION YOU HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A GRAND JURY PRESENTATION, 614 00:53:25.808 --> 00:53:31.380 THIS DEFENDANT IS GIVING A GRAND JURY PRESENTATION. HOW IS HE BEING DISCRIMINATED 615 00:53:31.380 --> 00:53:36.292 AGAINST BECAUSE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS BEING AFFORDED TO HIM. HE IS 616 00:53:36.292 --> 00:53:44.725 GIVING -- THE OTHER PERSON, THESE OTHER COUNTIES WHO MAY NOT BE GIVING, YOU KNOW, 617 00:53:44.725 --> 00:53:49.091 PROMPT ANL SPEEDY GRAND JURY PRESENTATIONS, THAT'S A DIFFERENT 618 00:53:49.091 --> 00:53:54.035 ISSUE, WE'RE HERE WITH THIS DEFENDANT WHO RECEIVED HIS GRAND JURY PRESENTATION, 619 00:53:54.035 --> 00:53:59.099 WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? MATTHEW S. ADAMS: BECAUSE IF HE WAS 620 00:53:59.099 --> 00:54:04.187 ARRESTED A COUPLE OF MILES TO THE NORTH IN MONMOUTH COUNTY HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN 621 00:54:04.187 --> 00:54:09.009 PRESENTED TO A LESSER GRAND JURY. THE COURT: HE WOULD NOT 622 00:54:09.009 --> 00:54:13.947 HAVE HAD ANY GRAND JURY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT ARGUMENT. WE'RE STARTING 623 00:54:13.947 --> 00:54:18.161 WITH THE CONSTITUTION. BOOEF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT SAYS THAT EVERY 624 00:54:18.161 --> 00:54:24.637 DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO A GRAND JURY PRESENTATION. THIS DEFENDANT GOT A GRAND 625 00:54:24.637 --> 00:54:30.641 JURY PRESENTATION AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE EQUAL PROCEED TECH SHUN CLAUSE 626 00:54:30.641 --> 00:54:34.554 IS VIOLATED BECAUSE HE GOT A GRAND JURY PRESENTATION? I AM 627 00:54:34.554 --> 00:54:37.127 TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OF THAT. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: BECAUSE 628 00:54:37.127 --> 00:54:42.101 HE GOT A FAR INFERIOR GRAND JURY PRESENTATION ONE REPLETE WITH ISSUES 629 00:54:42.101 --> 00:54:44.945 AS THE RECORD REFLECTS, JUSTICE ALBIN. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: OTHER 630 00:54:44.945 --> 00:54:49.739 PEOPLE THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO GOT NO GRAND JURY PRESENTATION. 631 00:54:49.739 --> 00:54:52.128 MATTHEW S. ADAMS: AND HE COULD HAVE -- JUSTICE ALBIN: AND YOU'RE 632 00:54:52.128 --> 00:54:56.595 TELLING ME THAT THAT IS BETTER THAN A GRAND JURY PRESENTATION? 633 00:54:56.595 --> 00:55:00.211 MATTHEW S. ADAMS: NO, JUSTICE ALBIN, WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT HE COULD BE ARRESTED 634 00:55:00.211 --> 00:55:04.245 FOR THE SAME OFFENSE, BUT HE WILL BE PRESENTED TO AN IN PERSON GRAND JURY 635 00:55:04.245 --> 00:55:12.831 AND WILL NOT SUFFER THE FLAWS OF THE GRAND JURY THAT HE SUFFERED HERE. 636 00:55:12.831 --> 00:55:23.454 MOVING THEN, IF I MAY INTO THE FINAL ARGUMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATION AND 637 00:55:23.454 --> 00:55:28.734 THAT IS IF YOU EXAMINE THIS COURTS LINE OF CASES BEGINNING WITH DEL FEEN 638 00:55:28.734 --> 00:55:37.081 KNOW IN 1985 AND MOVING TO MURPHY IN 1988, HOEG BEGAN IN 198 #6 96 AND THEN DUE 639 00:55:37.081 --> 00:55:42.785 SHAU IRONICALLY DECIDED BY THIS COURT JUST DAYS BEFORE WE WERE INJECTED INTO THE 640 00:55:42.785 --> 00:55:49.307 THROWS OF THE PANDZ IN EARLY MARCH OF 2020, YOU SEE A COMMON THEME FROM 641 00:55:49.307 --> 00:55:55.527 THE COURT AS IT RELATES TO ITS WILLINGNESS TO EXERCISE WHAT I WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE 642 00:55:55.527 --> 00:56:00.127 IS SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OF THE GRAND JURY ONLY, THOUGH, ON ISSUES OF FAIRNESS 643 00:56:00.127 --> 00:56:06.585 AN INTEGRITY. AND WHAT WE RESPECTFULLY WOULD SUBMIT AS IT RELATES TO THE GRAND 644 00:56:06.585 --> 00:56:10.866 JURY PROGRAM, THE VIRTUAL GRAND JURY PROGRAM THAT WAS DID HE HAVE SLICED 645 00:56:10.866 --> 00:56:17.460 HERE H MEMBERS OF THE COURT, THIS WAS NOT JUST AN INJECTION TO ENSURE THAT THERE WAS 646 00:56:17.460 --> 00:56:24.310 NO BIAS IN THE GRAND JURY, THAT THERE WAS NO -- THAT GRAND JURIES WERE ACTUALLY 647 00:56:24.310 --> 00:56:32.192 PRESENT WHEN THEY WERE PULLED SOMETIME LAERT AS THE CASE WITH, DEL FEEN KNOW AND/OR 648 00:56:32.192 --> 00:56:37.251 IN HOEG BEGAN AS IT RELATES TO EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE OR THE THIRD SUCCESSIVE 649 00:56:37.251 --> 00:56:42.201 -- JUSTICE ALBIN: ARE YOU ARGUING THAT OUR COURT CANNOT PROM 650 00:56:42.201 --> 00:56:47.360 ULGATE RULES GOVERNING THE GRAND JURY? I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE GOING 651 00:56:47.360 --> 00:56:50.191 WITH THIS? MATTHEW S. ADAMS: I WOULD ARGUE AND RESPECTFULLY, 652 00:56:50.191 --> 00:56:55.324 YOUR HONOR, THAT THE COURT DIDN'T JUDGE, JUST PROMULGATE A RULE AS THE CASES WOULD 653 00:56:55.324 --> 00:57:02.421 ALLOW TO UPHOLD THE FAIRNESS AND INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS BUT INSTEAD WHOLESALE, 654 00:57:02.421 --> 00:57:07.744 DRAMATICALLY CREATED A NEW PROOM. THIS IS NOT THE GRAND JURY PROGRAM THAT PREDATED 655 00:57:07.744 --> 00:57:12.150 THE PANDZ, THIS IS AN ENTIRELY NEW GRAND JURY PROGRAM. JUSTICE 656 00:57:12.150 --> 00:57:15.979 ALBIN: WE UNDERSTAND THAT, OF COURSE IT'S A NEW THING BECAUSE WE'RE USING TECH 657 00:57:15.979 --> 00:57:19.710 NOLOGY, SOMETHING WE'VE NEVER DONE BEFORE, BUT YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH OUR 658 00:57:19.710 --> 00:57:27.266 RULES OF COURT. WE HAVE RULES OF COURT SPECIFICALLY GOVERNING THE PRACTICE AND 659 00:57:27.266 --> 00:57:31.926 PROCEDURES BEFORE THE GRAND JURY INCLUDING WHO CONSIDER BE -- THE PEOPLE 660 00:57:31.926 --> 00:57:37.228 WHO APPEAR BEFORE THE GRAND JURY SO, DO YOU AT LEAST CONCEDE THAT IT IS WITHIN 661 00:57:37.228 --> 00:57:41.573 OUR -- SINCE THE GRAND JURY IS AN ARM OF THE COURT AND THAT WE HAVE THE 662 00:57:41.573 --> 00:57:46.835 SUPERVISE REAUTHORITY OVER THE COURTS THAT WE CAN PROMULGATE RULES ABOUT THE COURTS, 663 00:57:46.835 --> 00:57:50.430 DO YOU CONCEDE THAT? MATTHEW S. ADAMS: YES, I DO AND THE DEL FEEN 664 00:57:50.430 --> 00:57:57.536 KNOW, MURPHY, HOEG BEGAN, SHAU LINE OF CASES MAKES THAT UNAM BIG GUS OUS, JUSTICE 665 00:57:57.536 --> 00:58:02.753 ALBIN, WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT RULE MAKING AUTHORITY IS LIMITED AND IT'S LIMB 666 00:58:02.753 --> 00:58:09.525 TETD BY WIN BER RE, THAT CASE UNAMBIGUOUSLY SAYS THAT YOU CAN'T USE THAT 667 00:58:09.525 --> 00:58:13.872 RULE MAKING AUTHORITY TO SIMPLY MAKE A NEW PROGRAM. THIS IS A NEW PROGRAM. IN 668 00:58:13.872 --> 00:58:19.379 STHED THE COURT SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES OF LAW CAN ONLY BE MADE WHILE THERE IS 669 00:58:19.379 --> 00:58:23.755 A CASE OF CONTROVERSY BEFORE THE COURT. THERE WAS DONE WITHOUT A CASE OR CONTROVERSY 670 00:58:23.755 --> 00:58:28.583 AND I WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THE LIMIT OF THE COURT'S RULE MAKING 671 00:58:28.583 --> 00:58:34.881 AUTHORITY WERE ESSENTIALLY EE ADVICE SERRATED AND THIS COULD BE THE HAR BING GER 672 00:58:34.881 --> 00:58:40.433 OF AN ENTIRELY NEW LAW OF THE STATE WHICH WOULD ALOI THE COURTS RULE MAKING 673 00:58:40.433 --> 00:58:44.060 AUTHORITY TO BE USED FOR ANYTHING. JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA: MR. ADAMS, 674 00:58:44.060 --> 00:58:52.561 DOESN'T THE STAND FORWARD PROPOSITION. THIS IS ACTUALLY A 675 00:58:52.561 --> 00:58:57.007 RULE OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE R WE HAVEN'T DONE AWAY WITH THE GRAND JURY, WE 676 00:58:57.007 --> 00:58:59.471 HAVEN'T CHANGED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GRAND JURY THAT WOULD BE FOR THE 677 00:58:59.471 --> 00:59:10.985 LART, LEGISLATURE, JUSTICE VANDZ DER PILL. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: 678 00:59:10.985 --> 00:59:15.609 JUSTICE, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE, I WOULD SAY THIS IS AN ENTIRELY NEW 679 00:59:15.609 --> 00:59:18.613 PROGRAM THAT HAS CHANGED THE PROCEDURE. JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA: 680 00:59:18.613 --> 00:59:22.463 HAS IT CHANGED THE REQUIREMENTS, HAS IT CHANGED ANYTHING OTHER THAN PROERP NOW 681 00:59:22.463 --> 00:59:26.781 THAT IT IS DONE VIRTUAL BASE OF THE PANLDZ. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: YES. 682 00:59:26.781 --> 00:59:28.705 JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA: WHAT SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES HAVE BEEN 683 00:59:28.705 --> 00:59:38.426 MADE. EXPLAIN WHAT SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE? MATTHEW 684 00:59:38.426 --> 00:59:45.251 S. ADAMS: THIS IS WHERE THE ARGUMENT AS TO SEPARATION OF POWERS REALLY OVERLAPS, 685 00:59:45.251 --> 00:59:51.325 NO. 1 IT NOW AS AN DPRA REQUIREMENT OF THE NEED FOR TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS 686 00:59:51.325 --> 00:59:58.236 AND THEN TECHNOLOGICAL KNOW HOW, NOW I RESPECTFULLY CONCEDE THAT THE COURT HAS 687 00:59:58.236 --> 01:00:04.141 ENDEAVORED TO TRY TO FACILITATE THE TECHNOLOGICAL NEEDS PRONG BUT I DO NOT 688 01:00:04.141 --> 01:00:10.270 BELIEVE THAT THE COURT CAN OR HAS ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED THE TECHNOLOGICAL KNOW HOW. 689 01:00:10.270 --> 01:00:13.532 JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA: IN YOUR OPINION, THAT'S A SUBSTANTIVE 690 01:00:13.532 --> 01:00:20.363 CHANGE, NOT BECAUSE NOW YOU USE TECHNOLOGY? MATTHEW S. 691 01:00:20.363 --> 01:00:24.525 ADAMS: BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GRAND JURY ARE -- 692 01:00:24.525 --> 01:00:30.837 JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA: WHEN WE GO BACK TO REAL COURTROOMS AT SOME POINT, KRORTS 693 01:00:30.837 --> 01:00:35.349 ANTSDZ A LITTLE MACHINE, THEIR METHODS THAT IS A SUBSTANTIVE ACCORDING TO 694 01:00:35.349 --> 01:00:41.506 YOU, SHALL WE CHANGE ALL THAT, SHALL WE TAKE AWAY MICROPHONES IN COURT. 695 01:00:41.506 --> 01:00:45.534 MATTHEW S. ADAMS: I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE ADVANCE MENTSDZ OF COURT REPORTING 696 01:00:45.534 --> 01:00:50.401 TECHNOLOGY IS A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE IN THE WAY THAT THIS IS. 697 01:00:50.401 --> 01:00:52.991 JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA: OKAY. I GOT IT. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: YOUR HONOR, 698 01:00:52.991 --> 01:01:00.761 MY -- TO HIT IT DIRECTLY, MY ARGUMENT IS THAT THIS IS IN FACT A SUBSTANTIVE 699 01:01:00.761 --> 01:01:06.333 CHANGE. JUSTICE ALBIN: LOOK, WIN BER REISN'T ABOUT 700 01:01:06.333 --> 01:01:11.688 SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES, IT IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN SUBSTANTIVE 701 01:01:11.688 --> 01:01:23.376 LAW. THIS IS THE POINT THAT JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA IS MAKING HOW COULD IT 702 01:01:23.376 --> 01:01:27.740 NOT BE PART OF THE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF OUR COURTS TO DETERMINE SUCH THINGS 703 01:01:27.740 --> 01:01:35.924 AS HOW THE GRAND JURY ACTUALLY PERFORMS ITS FUNCTIONS. I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND 704 01:01:35.924 --> 01:01:40.754 HOW IS THAT A MATTER OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: 705 01:01:40.754 --> 01:01:45.026 QUITE SIMPLY, JUSTICE ALBIN, BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE PRESCRIBED YOU NEED TO BE 706 01:01:45.026 --> 01:01:50.111 OVER 18 YEARS TO VOTE, DOT, DOT, DOT, CHECK THE BOXES AN YOU CAN BE A GRAND 707 01:01:50.111 --> 01:01:54.753 JUROR, THERE IS A NEW BOX, JUSTICE ALBIN, THE NEW BOX IS THAT YOU UNDERSTAND HOW TO 708 01:01:54.753 --> 01:02:00.340 DO IT THIS WAY AND QUITE SIMPLY FOR THE REASONS THAT ARE LITTERED IN THIS 709 01:02:00.340 --> 01:02:05.016 TRANSCRIPT, THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK. NOW, THE COURT IN MR. FURLONG'S 710 01:02:05.016 --> 01:02:11.932 ARGUMENT MADE SOME STATEMENT THAT IT DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT REMEDIES, 711 01:02:11.932 --> 01:02:17.259 BUT AS AMICUS I WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT WE ARE POSITIONED TO HELP THE COURT 712 01:02:17.259 --> 01:02:23.011 IN FASHIONING A REMEDY BALLS I THINK WE CAN ACHIEVE A PROACTIVE AND PRA 713 01:02:23.011 --> 01:02:30.342 GMATIC BALANCE IF THE COURT WOULD INDULGE ME I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT. 714 01:02:30.342 --> 01:02:35.062 MAY I K CHIEF? CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: NOEMS. 715 01:02:35.062 --> 01:02:41.244 MATTHEW S. ADAMS: WE ARE CALLING FOR THE IMMEDIATE MORATORIUM OF VIRTUAL GRNLGS 716 01:02:41.244 --> 01:02:46.757 IN THE STATE, WE ARE STOPPING SHORT OF ASKING THE COURT TO SAY THAT ALL THE 717 01:02:46.757 --> 01:02:50.053 INDICTMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN RENDERED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS EXPERIMENT VIRTUAL 718 01:02:50.053 --> 01:02:57.063 GRNLGS ARE UNKONS NATURAL, BUT LIKE THE COURT DID IN SHAU AN LIKE THE COURT DID 719 01:02:57.063 --> 01:03:01.719 WITH SO MANY OTHER ISSUES THAT WE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WITH AS A CONSEQUENCE 720 01:03:01.719 --> 01:03:09.767 OF THIS PAND, WE WOULD LIKE TO ACHIEVE A PRACTICAL MECHANISM WHEREBY WE CAN ENSURE 721 01:03:09.767 --> 01:03:15.292 THAT THE DEFENDANTS WHO HAVE BEEN INDICTED BY THE VIRTUAL GRNLGS WERE INDICTED 722 01:03:15.292 --> 01:03:20.090 IN A FUNDAMENTAL THREE FAIR WAY THAT COMPORTS WITH THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, 723 01:03:20.090 --> 01:03:23.004 CAN WE DO THAT. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: MR. ADAMS, I DIDN'T 724 01:03:23.004 --> 01:03:27.144 FULLY APPRECIATE WHERE YOU WERE HEADED, YOU UNDERSTAND WE ARE HERE FOR A 725 01:03:27.144 --> 01:03:32.171 LEGAL ARGUMENT ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALLY STIT TUSHGS AND I KEEP REPEATING THAT 726 01:03:32.171 --> 01:03:37.102 AND THAT'S WHERE THE FOCUS OF THE DISCUSSION BELONGS NOT ALTERNATIVES, 727 01:03:37.102 --> 01:03:41.422 NOT SUGGESTIONS, BUT WHETHER THERE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL FLAWS, YOU HAVE LAID OUT YOUR 728 01:03:41.422 --> 01:03:45.185 POINTS AS TO THAT, IF THERE IS ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD WITH RESPECT TO 729 01:03:45.185 --> 01:03:48.766 THAT PLEASE GO AHEAD. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: I THOUGHT I SAW YOU 730 01:03:48.766 --> 01:03:54.625 ACKNOWLEDGE, SAY YES, WHEN I ASKED THAT QUESTION, AND I APOLOGIZE. 731 01:03:54.625 --> 01:04:00.684 IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT, YOUR HONORS, THAT THE VIRTUAL 732 01:04:00.684 --> 01:04:07.455 SAGS OF GRAND JURIES HAS CREATED NOT JUST A PROCEDURAL OR A RULE OF PRACTICE 733 01:04:07.455 --> 01:04:12.681 BUT IT HAS CREATED A SUBSTANTIVE ERROR OF LAW BECAUSE OF THE WAYS THAT IT IMPACTS. 734 01:04:12.681 --> 01:04:18.795 I ENCOURAGE THE COURTS TO FOCUS ON THE IMPACT OF THE VIRTUAL GRAND JURY, ON 735 01:04:18.795 --> 01:04:22.905 THE BAY THAT THE GRAND JURY PROCESS IS CONDUCTED ANL I HAD ENCOURAGE YOU TO SEE 736 01:04:22.905 --> 01:04:28.156 IT THE WAY THAT WE DID WHICH IS THAT THE DIGITAL DIVIDE, THE LACK OF SECRECY, THE 737 01:04:28.156 --> 01:04:35.069 TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUES ARE NOT WORTS -- WE ARE ON THE PRECIPICE OF BEING ABLE 738 01:04:35.069 --> 01:04:39.622 TO RESUME SOME LEVEL OF NORMAL SEE. THE COURT: MRACHLT, THE 739 01:04:39.622 --> 01:04:44.134 COURT HAS SAID FROM THE START THAT THIS IS A TEMPORARY PROGRAM THAT EXISTS DURING 740 01:04:44.134 --> 01:04:49.119 THE PANLD, AGAIN, TO THE EXTENT YOU HAVE ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL 741 01:04:49.119 --> 01:04:54.740 ISSUES WE ARE PLEASED TO HEAR THAT P BEYOND THAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO REST 742 01:04:54.740 --> 01:05:01.299 YOUR ARGUMENT AT AT THIS POINT. MATTHEW S. ADAMS: THAUNG, 743 01:05:01.299 --> 01:05:04.084 YOUR HONOR. A. THE COURT: MR. NERA RE. 744 01:05:04.084 --> 01:05:07.726 BRIAN J. NEARY: CHIEF JUSTICE, GOOD MORNING, JUS STIGS ES; MAY IT PLEASE THE 745 01:05:07.726 --> 01:05:12.860 COURT, FIRST OF ALL, ON MAF OF PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT ANL THE NEW JERSEY BAR 746 01:05:12.860 --> 01:05:16.734 ASSOCIATION I THAUNG FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THIS ARGUMENT AS AN ADVOCATE. 747 01:05:16.734 --> 01:05:20.423 I HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY OF COURSE TO LISTEN TO BOTH THE 748 01:05:20.423 --> 01:05:25.427 QUESTIONS AND THE OBSERVATIONS BY MY BROTHERS WITH REGARD TO QUESTIONS. BUT I 749 01:05:25.427 --> 01:05:32.221 FOCUS OUR ARGUMENT LIGHT NOW, MY ARGUMENT RIGHT NOW WITH REGARD TO THE 750 01:05:32.221 --> 01:05:37.737 CONSTITUTIONALLY NALT AND CHIEF, I PROMISE TO STAY RIGHT THERE, TO DEAL WITH WHY 751 01:05:37.737 --> 01:05:42.602 THIS INVESTIGATORY JUDICIAL BODY IS SO IMPORTANT AND I WOULD SAY THAT THERE 752 01:05:42.602 --> 01:05:49.462 IS, WHAT I CALL WITH THIS PRINCIPLE IS ONE OF THE NORTH STARS OF OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE 753 01:05:49.462 --> 01:05:54.854 SYSTEM. WE CANNOT NAVIGATE WITH WITHOUT THE NORTH STAR T NOW BROTHER ADD DAMS 754 01:05:54.854 --> 01:05:59.783 REFERRED TO STATE V. SHAU WHICH WAS DECIDED RIGHTS IN THAT BUILDING RIGHT CROSS 755 01:05:59.783 --> 01:06:05.546 THE STREET FOR ME AND AS THE COURT MAY REMEMBER I WAS COUNSEL AT THE TRIAL LEVEL. 756 01:06:05.546 --> 01:06:10.442 IN MARCH OF 2020, THIS COURT EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE 757 01:06:10.442 --> 01:06:20.712 GRAND JURY, THE OPINION WENT THROUGH THE. TIME WITH REGARD TO 758 01:06:20.712 --> 01:06:25.232 THE PRIME MASS SEE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE GRAND JURY. NOW, I HAVE 759 01:06:25.232 --> 01:06:31.021 HEARD ARGUMENTS AND LET ME MAKE A POINT, THAT THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION HAS WELCOMED 760 01:06:31.021 --> 01:06:36.782 ANSWER HENCE COLLABORATED WITH THIS COURT BOTH IN TERMS OF THE NEED TO MOVE 761 01:06:36.782 --> 01:06:42.748 FORWARD DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TERRIBLE PAND AND THE PROPER UTILIZATION OF TECH 762 01:06:42.748 --> 01:06:47.775 NOLOGY, OF TECHNOLOGY IN ACHIEVING THOSE POINTS, THE PERFECT EXAMPLE IS THE 763 01:06:47.775 --> 01:06:52.931 STATE BAR'S LEAD SHIM WITH REGARD TO VISUAL CIVIL GRAND JURIES, SO THAT THIS IS 764 01:06:52.931 --> 01:06:59.720 NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST TECHNOLOGY OR FAILURE TO EMBRACE TECHNOLOGY. IT IS 765 01:06:59.720 --> 01:07:04.863 FOCUSED ON THE USE OF THE TECHNOLOGY IN THIS VERY, WHAT I WOULD CALL A NORTH STAR 766 01:07:04.863 --> 01:07:10.219 OR VERY, VERY SACRED ISSUE. NOW, JUSTICE LA VECCHIA ASKED SEVERAL 767 01:07:10.219 --> 01:07:14.697 QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF TECHNOLOGY. I CONCEDE THE 768 01:07:14.697 --> 01:07:19.978 AVAILABILITY OF TECHNOLOGY, IT HAS BEEN GIVEN, THEY RIDE AROUND, THEY GIVE OUT TECH 769 01:07:19.978 --> 01:07:25.001 NOLOGY. WHILE I WILL NOT NECESSARILY CONCEDE PROFICIENCY 770 01:07:25.001 --> 01:07:30.061 BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN THE DIGITAL DIVIDE FOR PURPOSES OF THE ARGUMENT LET'S SAY EVERYBODY 771 01:07:30.061 --> 01:07:35.758 IS PROPHET PROFICIENT BUT HERE IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFICIENCY, IT IS IN 772 01:07:35.758 --> 01:07:41.894 THE ABILITY FOR THE JURORS TO REVIEW AND TO DELIBERATE THIS QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE 773 01:07:41.894 --> 01:07:46.802 AND WE ALL KNOW IT'S PROBABLE CAUSE, WE ALL KNOW THAT THE COURT RULE ALLOWS 774 01:07:46.802 --> 01:07:53.604 ONLY 12 JURORS HAVING TO VOTE FOR A TRUE BILL, WHAT WE ALSO RECOGNIZE, THAT IT IS 775 01:07:53.604 --> 01:07:57.863 AN INDEPENDENT PROCESS, THERE IS EVEN SOME RECOMMENDATIONS THAT A PROSECUTOR 776 01:07:57.863 --> 01:08:05.198 SHOULD EVEN READ RL LEAVE THE ROOM TO ALLOW THE JURORS TO REVIEW AND DELIBERATE 777 01:08:05.198 --> 01:08:13.935 SO WHILE I UNDERSTAND THAT INFORMATION MAY BE PROVIDED WITH REGARD TO THE 778 01:08:13.935 --> 01:08:20.104 EVIDENCE ITSELF, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS. 779 01:08:20.104 --> 01:08:23.086 NOW, WE HAVE -- THE COURT: HOW IS THAT PROCESS DIFFERENT WITH 780 01:08:23.086 --> 01:08:27.727 THE VIRTUAL GRAND JURY PROCEEDING OTHER THAN IT NOT BEING IN PERSON AN BEING CONDUCTED 781 01:08:27.727 --> 01:08:34.950 THROUGH TECHNOLOGY? BRIAN J. NEARY: JEEF JUSTICE, IN THE PREPANDZ, 782 01:08:34.950 --> 01:08:40.109 DELIBERATION, EVERYBODY IS IN THE SAME ROOM, EVERYBODY CAN CONNECT WITH EACH OTHER 783 01:08:40.109 --> 01:08:45.798 IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND WE THINK OF THE SANCTITY OF THAT ROOM, NO ONE GOES 784 01:08:45.798 --> 01:08:51.611 INTO THAT ROOM. WE BASICALLY HAVE 23 DELIBERATION ROOMS. WITHOUT THE CONNECTION, 785 01:08:51.611 --> 01:08:56.224 WITHOUT THE HUMAN CONNECTION WITH REGARD TO THIS. THE COURT: 786 01:08:56.224 --> 01:09:03.655 ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT CIVIL PETIT JURORS CAN DELIBERATE VIRTUALLY, BUT GRAND JURORS 787 01:09:03.655 --> 01:09:10.850 CANNOT BECAUSE IT PRESENTS CONSTITUTIONAL PROEBL IN THE LATTER CATEGORY. 788 01:09:10.850 --> 01:09:13.448 BRIAN J. NEARY: I WOULD SUGGEST BECAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL 789 01:09:13.448 --> 01:09:19.773 DIMENSION THAT GRAND JURORS NEED TO BE PRESENT IN THE SAME ROOM. I DON'T THINK 790 01:09:19.773 --> 01:09:25.493 THAT WE HAVE THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT WITH REGARD TO CIVIL TRIAL 791 01:09:25.493 --> 01:09:31.738 JURIES. IT IS THAT CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION THAT I THINK SH SO IMPORTANT. SO 792 01:09:31.738 --> 01:09:35.220 IF WE GO THROUGH -- JUSTICE ALBIN: I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT 793 01:09:35.220 --> 01:09:42.512 BECAUSE CIVIL JURORS ARE IN THE SAME ROOM WHEN THEY DELIBERATE, GRAND JUROR ARE 794 01:09:42.512 --> 01:09:49.459 IN SAME ROOM, TECHNOLOGICALLY, HERE THEY ARE IN THE SAME ROOM, THEY ARE 795 01:09:49.459 --> 01:09:56.727 JUST IN A VIRTUAL ROOM. ARE YOU SAYING IN ONE CASE FINE AND IN THE OTHER CASE 796 01:09:56.727 --> 01:10:00.442 NOT FINE. BRIAN J. NEARY: I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE DISTINCTIONS 797 01:10:00.442 --> 01:10:06.283 IS THE CIVIL JURY IS ADVERSARIAL WITH REGARD TO THE TWO POSITIONS ARGUED BY THE 798 01:10:06.283 --> 01:10:13.022 PARTIES, ONG, IN THE GRAND JURY CONTEXT WE KNOW IT IS A SINGLE ENTITY AND 799 01:10:13.022 --> 01:10:17.523 THAT THE PRESENTATION BY A PROSECUTOR, BY THE STATE WOULD AND I'M GOING TO USE 800 01:10:17.523 --> 01:10:24.030 THE WORD INFLUENCE, IS THE INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED. THERE HAS GOT TO BE A 801 01:10:24.030 --> 01:10:28.513 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT A GRAND JURY DOES AN WHAT A PETIT JURY DOES WITH REGARD 802 01:10:28.513 --> 01:10:33.721 TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION THAT'S WHAT I AM DRIVING AT AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT 803 01:10:33.721 --> 01:10:42.003 THE FLAWS THAT WE'VE SEEN, WITH PARK, PARK GOES BACK TO 1986 WHEN THE ASSISTANT 804 01:10:42.003 --> 01:10:48.154 PROSECUTOR NETTED IMPROPER RECOMMENDATION, WE COULD SIMPLY SAY THE WORD HARMLESS 805 01:10:48.154 --> 01:10:53.700 WAS USED. WE DON'T USE HARMLESS ERROR AS A CRITERIA WITH WHICH THIS CONSTITUTIONAL 806 01:10:53.700 --> 01:11:00.135 DIMENSION. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT DEL FEEN KNOW, DEL FEEN KNOW 807 01:11:00.135 --> 01:11:03.606 WAS WHERE THE GRAND JURORS, NOT EVERYBODY WAS PRESENT AT THE SAME TIME AND WHY 808 01:11:03.606 --> 01:11:07.987 WOULD THAT BE IMPORTANT, BECAUSE IT IS THE COMPLETE REVIEW AND DELIBERATIVE 809 01:11:07.987 --> 01:11:12.644 PROCESS OF THOSE PEOPLE. THE COURT: MR. NERA RE. 810 01:11:12.644 --> 01:11:16.266 BRIAN J. NEARY: YES. THE COURT: I WANT TO BETTER UNDERSTAND YOUR 811 01:11:16.266 --> 01:11:21.241 ARGUMENT BECAUSE I NEED SOME HELP WITH IT. ASSUME TECHNOLOGY WORKS PERFECT 812 01:11:21.241 --> 01:11:26.647 LY FOR THIS QUESTION AN THAT ALL 23 GRAND JURORS CAN APPEAR ON A SDREEN SUCH AS 813 01:11:26.647 --> 01:11:31.145 THIS AND HEAR ONE OOFT AND HAVE A BACK AND FORTH, WHAT IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL 814 01:11:31.145 --> 01:11:37.873 IMPEDIMENT? BRIAN J. NEARY: I WOULD SAY, FOR ONE, THE NECESSITY 815 01:11:37.873 --> 01:11:48.886 OF PRESENCE IN THAT DELIBERATE I HAVE PROCESS. CHIEF, IF I COULD FRAME IT IN THIS 816 01:11:48.886 --> 01:11:56.621 WAYS WAY, IF WE HAD HAD THIS ARGUMENT PREPAND, THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE 817 01:11:56.621 --> 01:12:01.546 WANTED TO PRESENT AND SAY IT'S EASIER TO GET 23 PEOPLE TO SHOW UP, I THINK THAT 818 01:12:01.546 --> 01:12:07.819 WE WOULD REJECT THAT AS THERE BEING SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE DELIBERATIVE 819 01:12:07.819 --> 01:12:15.645 PROCESS. JUSTICE ALBIN: MR. NERA, WE ARE IN OUTSTANDING TIMES. 820 01:12:15.645 --> 01:12:21.054 I AM GOING TO ASK YOU A HYPOTHETICAL. IT IS ONLY DUE TO THE MIRACLE OF MODERN 821 01:12:21.054 --> 01:12:26.384 MEDICINE THAT WE HAVE A VACCINE AND WE MAY SOON GET BEYOND THIS, BUT ASSUMING, 822 01:12:26.384 --> 01:12:32.355 ASSUMING THAT THIS PAND WAS GOING TO BE ONGOING FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, IS 823 01:12:32.355 --> 01:12:37.740 IT YOUR ARGUMENT THAT OUR COURT SYSTEM COULD NOT USE TECHNOLOGY IN ORDER 824 01:12:37.740 --> 01:12:46.475 TO ADVANCE AND ASSURE THE WORKING OF THE CONSTITUTIONALLY STIT TUSHGS, THE WORKING 825 01:12:46.475 --> 01:12:52.344 OF THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ARGUING? BRIAN J. 826 01:12:52.344 --> 01:12:58.208 NEARY: JUSTICE ALBIN, IT'S VERY HARD TO EVEN IMAGINE, RIGHT NOW IN THREE YEARS. 827 01:12:58.208 --> 01:13:01.380 THE COURT: JUSTICE ALBIN: I AM ASKING IT BECAUSE 828 01:13:01.380 --> 01:13:05.332 I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR PREMISE IS, IS IT YOUR PREMISE THAT UNDER 829 01:13:05.332 --> 01:13:11.629 NO CIRCUMSTANCE CAN THE JUDICIARY USE TECHNOLOGY TO ENSURE THE VIE AT THAT TIME 830 01:13:11.629 --> 01:13:18.095 VITALITY OF OUR CONSTITUTION. BRIAN J. NEARY: NO, IT DID, 831 01:13:18.095 --> 01:13:23.246 BUT YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT AT A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. I DON'T THINK JUSTICE ALBIN 832 01:13:23.246 --> 01:13:30.034 THAT WE WOULD BE WILLING TO HAVE A CRIMINAL TRIAL WHERE WE HAD DEFENDANTS -- WHERE 833 01:13:30.034 --> 01:13:35.938 THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS WAS REMOTE BECAUSE I THINK IT THERE WOULD BE 834 01:13:35.938 --> 01:13:40.undefined SOMETHING LOST IN THAT PROCESS AND I THINK THE SAME THING APPLIES TO THE 836 01:13:45.707 --> 01:13:53.503 UTILIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY TO MEET THESE TROUBLED, TERRIBLE TIMES, BUT THERE 837 01:13:53.503 --> 01:13:57.883 ARE LIMITATIONS TO THAT AND WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE SITUATIONS WHERE 838 01:13:57.883 --> 01:14:02.707 THERE NEEDS TO BE A LIMITATION. I KNOW THAT THE CHIEF HAS SUGGESTED THAT 839 01:14:02.707 --> 01:14:08.841 WE WOULD NOT SEEK REMEDIES OR TALK ABOUT REMEDIES, BUT TECHNOLOGY CAN ALSO BE USED 840 01:14:08.841 --> 01:14:16.700 IN A SINGLE SITE. THE FEDERAL GRAND JURY, THEY GO TO THE BUILDINGS SO THE 841 01:14:16.700 --> 01:14:22.709 TECHNOLOGY IS USED IN A WAY, BUT NOT IN A WAY AS REMOTE AS 23 DIFFERENT LOCATIONS 842 01:14:22.709 --> 01:14:29.181 IN EACH OF OUR 21 COUNTIES. THE COURT: DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY 843 01:14:29.181 --> 01:14:34.674 STATE GRAND JURIES THERE ARE AS COMPARED TO THE FEDERAL SYSTEM. 844 01:14:34.674 --> 01:14:38.741 BRIAN J. NEARY: 18 STATES HAVE GRAND JURIES IN THE UNITED STATES, OTHERWISE YOU HAVE 845 01:14:38.741 --> 01:14:44.049 AN ADVERSE PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING. THE COURT: I WAS RAISING 846 01:14:44.049 --> 01:14:48.954 A RHETORICAL QUESTION, DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY STATE GRAND JURIES THERE ARE 847 01:14:48.954 --> 01:14:54.244 IN NEW JERSEY AN HOW MANY STATE GRAND JURIES THERE ARE THAT ARE CONVENED IN 848 01:14:54.244 --> 01:14:58.109 ORDINARY TIMES IN ORDER TO MEET THE SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF CASES, CRIMINAL CASES 849 01:14:58.109 --> 01:15:05.811 THROUGHOUT THE YEAR? BRIAN J. NEARY: CHIEF JIS STIS, THIS IS 850 01:15:05.811 --> 01:15:12.707 21 COUNTIES WITH THE VOLUME THAT FAR EXCEEDS WHAT WE LOOKED AT IN THE FED 851 01:15:12.707 --> 01:15:20.809 ERAL COURTS. SO THAT ARGUMENT IS NOT THAT WE CAN'T USE THE TECHNOLOGY, THAT ARGUMENT 852 01:15:20.809 --> 01:15:25.875 IS THAT WE KNLTS GET THAT MANY PEOPLE IN THE BUILDING AT ANY GIVEN TIME, 853 01:15:25.875 --> 01:15:31.469 THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BECAUSE IT APPEARS, AGAIN, NOT SEEKING REMEDIES BUT THAT 854 01:15:31.469 --> 01:15:36.036 THE DEFENDANT SYSTEM WHICH I ACTUALLY FIND IN TERMS OF GRAND JURY PRESENTATION, 855 01:15:36.036 --> 01:15:42.610 IN TERMS OF GRAND JURY REMEDY IS LESS HELPFUL TO A DEFENDANT, I THINK ITS 856 01:15:42.610 --> 01:15:47.086 RULE 6 THAT ALLOWS YOU TO GO, THERE IS NO REAL PRACTICE TO DISMISS INDICTMENTS 857 01:15:47.086 --> 01:15:53.159 BAILSED ON GRAND JURY CONDUCT THEY HAVE TO GO TO A JURY TRIAL. WE IN OUR 858 01:15:53.159 --> 01:15:57.850 STATE CON SDIT TUSHGS HAVE CLEARLY RECOGNIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SANCTITY OF THE 859 01:15:57.850 --> 01:16:03.075 GRAND JURY WHERE OTHERWISE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE DEL FEEN KNOW, MURPHY OR SHAU 860 01:16:03.075 --> 01:16:08.490 TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT, LET THE TRIAL COURT DEAL WITH THAT, SO THERE HAS TO BE 861 01:16:08.490 --> 01:16:13.958 AN INHERENT VALUE TO THAT SO IT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST TECHNOLOGY AND IT IS 862 01:16:13.958 --> 01:16:21.273 NOT AN ARGUMENT THAT IN FACT, THAT THE COURTS, THAT THE SPRM AND THE ADD MINL 863 01:16:21.273 --> 01:16:26.416 STRAIGHT I HAVE OFFICE OF THE COURT HAS DONE EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO KEEP THIS SYSTEM 864 01:16:26.416 --> 01:16:32.827 GOING IN THE FACE OF THIS PANDZ AND IN THE PROPER USE OF TECHNOLOGY, BUT 865 01:16:32.827 --> 01:16:36.909 THERE CAN BE A LIMIT AN THIS IS THE BRIDGE THAT I BELIEVE IS TOO FAR. 866 01:16:36.909 --> 01:16:41.331 NOW, THERE HAS BEEN ARGUMENTS MADE WITH REGARD TO SECRECY. I WOULD AGREE THAT 867 01:16:41.331 --> 01:16:46.844 YOU HAVE -- SECRECY GOES TWO WAYS, SECRECY GOES TO THE PERSON WHO OTHERWISE 868 01:16:46.844 --> 01:16:50.764 IS INNOCENT WHO HAS NOT BEEN INDICTED AN JUSTICE ALBIN, YOU'RE RIELTHD WHEN YOU 869 01:16:50.764 --> 01:16:55.393 SAY WELL, ANYBODY COULD GO OUT AND BLAB IT ON THE STREET BUT HERE IT COULD BE 870 01:16:55.393 --> 01:17:00.198 AN INADVERTENT PIECE OF INFORMATION, THERE IS A FLIP SIDE, REMEMBER THE STATE BAR 871 01:17:00.198 --> 01:17:05.558 TAKES THE POSITION BOTH FOR THE DEFENSE AN THE PROSECUTION, WHAT ABOUT THE DANGER 872 01:17:05.558 --> 01:17:11.721 TO A WITNESS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE WHO OTHERWISE MIGHT BE A CONFIDENTIAL 873 01:17:11.721 --> 01:17:16.410 INFORMANT THAT THE PROSECUTORS MAY ACTUALLY HAVE ACTUALLY PUT THEIR WITNESSES AT 874 01:17:16.410 --> 01:17:21.983 JEM PARDON DEE AS A RESULT OF THE THIS INSTEAD OF CONTROLLING THE SINGLE 875 01:17:21.983 --> 01:17:27.604 LOCATION WHERE PEOPLE GO, YOU HAVE 23 LOCATIONS IN ANY GIVEN COUNTY NOW -- 876 01:17:27.604 --> 01:17:30.215 JUSTICE ALBIN: HOW IS THAT AN ARGUMENT THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE 877 01:17:30.215 --> 01:17:41.425 HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A GRAND JURY. YOU ARE MAKING ARGUMENTS THAT SUGGEST 878 01:17:41.425 --> 01:17:46.133 THAT THIS SNLTS WORKING FOR THE STATE, THAT THE STATE'S WIPS ES MAY BE 879 01:17:46.133 --> 01:17:50.274 THREATENED AND WE'RE HERE CONCENTRATING ON WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED 880 01:17:50.274 --> 01:17:54.482 HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A GRAND JURY PRESENTATION SO THAT IS EEGS OUR 881 01:17:54.482 --> 01:17:58.993 FOCUS, YES? BRIAN J. NEARY: YES, JUSTICE, I APOLOGIZE -- 882 01:17:58.993 --> 01:18:08.174 MY USUAL POSITION AS AMICUS IS FOR ACDL BY P MY POSITION NOW IS MORE CENTRAL BECAUSE 883 01:18:08.174 --> 01:18:12.240 OF THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION BUT IF IT IS CONDITIONAL AS TO CONSTITUTIONALLY 884 01:18:12.240 --> 01:18:17.814 NALT, I WOULD STILL DEAL WITH THE SECRECY ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE INNOCENT BECAUSE 885 01:18:17.814 --> 01:18:22.272 REMEMBER, THE GRAND JURY BOTH ALLOWS THE STATE TO BRING CHARGES FORWARD 886 01:18:22.272 --> 01:18:27.740 BUT ALSO AS A BULL LOCK AGAINST THE STATE HAND TO PROEP TEKT THE INFORMATION OTHERWISE 887 01:18:27.740 --> 01:18:34.635 THAT THE PERSON WOULD BE INNOCENT TO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION. I WOULD 888 01:18:34.635 --> 01:18:39.694 SUGGEST THAT THAT, WHILE IT MAY NOT BE THE PRIMARY IT STILL HAS TO BE A RECOGNIZED 889 01:18:39.694 --> 01:18:44.411 ONE AND I GO BACK TO THE REVIEW OF EVIDENCE AND THE DELIBERATE IFT 890 01:18:44.411 --> 01:18:48.490 PROCESS. I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL DUE PROCESS CONSIDERATION THAT 891 01:18:48.490 --> 01:18:54.862 IS MOST IMPORTANT HERE AND THAT IS MOST IMPORTANT FOR US TO PROEKT. 892 01:18:54.862 --> 01:19:03.244 AS I HAVE SUGGESTED, IT IS IN DELIBERATION AN REVIEW. NOW, THERE IS 893 01:19:03.244 --> 01:19:07.536 SOME DISCUSSION OF THE DIGITAL DIVIDE AND WHETHER OR NOT AS JUSTICE ALBIN, JUSTICE LA 894 01:19:07.536 --> 01:19:12.012 VECCHIA, HAS ASKED THE QUESTION IS THERE ANY ADDITION TO THE CRITERIA BY 895 01:19:12.012 --> 01:19:16.359 WHICH SOMEONE BECOMES A GRAND JURY, I CONCEDE I DON'T KNOW THAT ANSWER, WE DON'T 896 01:19:16.359 --> 01:19:20.044 KNOW THAT ANSWER ALTHOUGH IF YOU LOOK AT THE POPULAR PRESS, IF YOU LOOK 897 01:19:20.044 --> 01:19:24.180 AT DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE PAND T THERE IS A RECOGNITION BOTH IN 898 01:19:24.180 --> 01:19:30.034 THE MEDICAL FIELD THAT THERE ARE THOSE IN THIS SOCIETY WHO ARE GREATLY AFFECTED 899 01:19:30.034 --> 01:19:35.032 IN GREATER WAYS ANL PART OF THAT MIGHT BE THE DIGITAL DIVIDE BUT I AM NOT 900 01:19:35.032 --> 01:19:38.907 GOING TO REST MY CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT ON THAT. I REST THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT 901 01:19:38.907 --> 01:19:44.153 ON THE NECESSITY FOR THE APPROPRIATE REVIEW AND THE APPROPRIATE 902 01:19:44.153 --> 01:19:50.821 DELIBERATIVE PROCESS THAT WE RECOGNIZE. WE PUT JURORS IN ROOMS TOGETHER. WE LOCK 903 01:19:50.821 --> 01:19:56.421 THEM IN THERE, KEEP THEM IN A QUIET AN CONVENIENT PLACE, LET KNOW ONE INTRUDE 904 01:19:56.421 --> 01:20:03.156 UPON THEM UNLESS BY ORDER OF THE COURT. WE KNOW THAT THAT PHRASEOLOGY USED WITH REGARD 905 01:20:03.156 --> 01:20:08.881 TO A PETIT JURY THAT'S WHY WE KEEP THEM IN A ROOM, THAT'S WHY WE KEEP THEM 906 01:20:08.881 --> 01:20:14.915 TOGETHER SO MY SUGGESTION IS THAT THAT IS THE ULTS ULTIMATE FLAW. 907 01:20:14.915 --> 01:20:18.999 JUSTICE ALBIN: JUST SO I AM UNDERSTANDING YOUR ARGUMENT, YOU ARE SAYING THAT 908 01:20:18.999 --> 01:20:27.583 NO FORM OF TECHNOLOGY COULD WORK HERE BECAUSE YOUR ARGUMENT IS REGARDLESS OF 909 01:20:27.583 --> 01:20:35.106 THE PAND AND REGARDLESS OF THE SWING THE FACT THAT GRAND JURORS CAN'T SIT IN THE 910 01:20:35.106 --> 01:20:40.535 SAME ROOM DENIES THE DEFENDANT HIS RIGHT TO A GRAND JURY PRESENTATION; THAT'S YOUR 911 01:20:40.535 --> 01:20:44.491 ARGUMENT. BRIAN J. NEARY: YES, IN THAT WE HAVE TO 912 01:20:44.491 --> 01:20:54.028 PERFECT THE TABLT FOR THEM TO REVIEW AND DELIBERATE TOGETHER IN A FREE 913 01:20:54.028 --> 01:20:59.383 DISCUSSION. VOOIN VOOIN THERE IS NO WAY TO PERFECT THAT OTHER THAN TO HAVE ALL 914 01:20:59.383 --> 01:21:04.720 GRAND JURORS COME INTO A ONE ROOM WHEN YOU SAID PERFECT, YOU DON'T WANT 915 01:21:04.720 --> 01:21:13.104 US TO PERFECT YOU WANT YOU ALSO TO GO BACK TO THE OLD WAY IS THAT AN ACCURATE DISCUSSION 916 01:21:13.104 --> 01:21:18.606 OF YOUR ARGUMENT FOOER NERA I THINK THAT IS CORRECT VOOEN SOOEN NOTHING WE CAN 917 01:21:18.606 --> 01:21:23.728 DO WITHOUT GOING BACK TO OLD WAY. BRIAN J. NEARY: I AM NOT SUGGESTING 918 01:21:23.728 --> 01:21:28.466 A REMEDY BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF BIG ROOMS AROUND THIS STATE WHERE WE CAN 919 01:21:28.466 --> 01:21:34.715 PUT JURORS WHO CAN BE SOCIALLY DISTANCED WITH MASKS ON HOPEFULLY WHO WILL BE VAK 920 01:21:34.715 --> 01:21:41.014 NATD. I HOPE THAT I HAVE ARLG, ARLT THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT VIEW. 921 01:21:41.014 --> 01:21:47.657 THE COURT: MR. FLN, YOU MR. NEARY, YOU ARGUED BEFORE THE COURT MANY TIMES 922 01:21:47.657 --> 01:21:52.856 BEFORE KOEFD, DURING KOEFD NOW AND TODAY AS ON OTHER OCCASIONS YOU HAVE MADE AN 923 01:21:52.856 --> 01:22:00.028 EM PARKSED ARGUMENT TO THE COURT AND WE HAVE, IS YOUR ARGUMENT TODAY OVER TECH 924 01:22:00.028 --> 01:22:03.725 NOLOGY BEEN IMPAIRED? BRIAN J. NEARY: NO AND I WILL TELL YOU WHY, 925 01:22:03.725 --> 01:22:10.050 RESPECTFULLY, CHIEF. I HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF ARGUING IN FRONT OF EACH 926 01:22:10.050 --> 01:22:17.746 AND EVERY ONE OF YOU WITH THE EXCEPTION OF JUDGE POOER AND I WELCOME IN INITIAL 927 01:22:17.746 --> 01:22:22.769 EXPERIENCE. I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS. I AM ON ZOOM I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY 928 01:22:22.769 --> 01:22:29.637 TIMES A DAY AND I BRING HOPEFULLY A PROFICIENCY AFTER DOING THIS FOR ABOUT 46 929 01:22:29.637 --> 01:22:36.165 YEARS OF MY ABILITY SO I CAN ADAPT ADAPT. THE COURT: DO YOU 930 01:22:36.165 --> 01:22:42.709 THINK A LAWYER STANDING UP FOR THE FIRST TIME TODAY WHO KNOWS HOW TO HIT THE 931 01:22:42.709 --> 01:22:47.195 UNMUTE ARGUMENT WOULD HAVE AN I'M PARDON ARGUMENT. BRIAN J. NEARY: 932 01:22:47.195 --> 01:22:51.070 NO BECAUSE THE DIFFERENCE I BELIEVE, IS THE FACT THAT WE ARE ARGUING, LAWYER TO 933 01:22:51.070 --> 01:22:57.449 JUSTICE ES DISCUSSING MAERTS OF LAW. THE ISSUE OF THE GRAND JURY ARE CITIZENS 934 01:22:57.449 --> 01:23:09.472 DISCUSSING THE BRINGING OF CHARGES AGAINST FELLOW CITIZENS IN A VERY, VERY SACRED 935 01:23:09.472 --> 01:23:13.909 POSITION, NOT TO SUGGEST THAT THIS IS NOT SACRED, THE ARGUMENTS THAT WE 936 01:23:13.909 --> 01:23:17.976 MAKE HERE, BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WE DO AS LAWYERS TO JUSTICE ES 937 01:23:17.976 --> 01:23:23.074 AND THAT WE ASK JURORS TO DECIDE; THAT'S -- IF THE QUESTION WAS WOULD YOU 938 01:23:23.074 --> 01:23:28.504 WANT ONE JUDGE AS OPPOSED TO TWELVE JURORS, CONSTITUTIONALLY I THINK WE'VE ANSWERED 939 01:23:28.504 --> 01:23:34.824 THAT FOR AT LEAST 250 YEARS OR SO AND EVEN BEYOND THAT. THERE IS A VAM 940 01:23:34.824 --> 01:23:41.500 U TO THE CITIZEN. THERE IS A VAL HUE TO THE CITIZEN REVIEWING AND DELIBERATING. 941 01:23:41.500 --> 01:23:47.341 NOT PROFESSIONALS LIKE WE ARE, NOT BHOV SPENT THE LIFE IN THE LAW, BUT WE EXPECT 942 01:23:47.341 --> 01:23:52.239 PEOPLE WHO ARE AROUND HERE WALKING IN HACKENSACK TO BE ABLE TO BRING THEIR 943 01:23:52.239 --> 01:23:59.033 COLLECTIVE EXPERIENCE TO MAKE THE REVIEW AN DELIBERATE ACTIVE PROCESS SO LIKE I 944 01:23:59.033 --> 01:24:04.036 SAID I AM NOT OPPOSED TO TECHNOLOGY. IT'S A LOT EASIER TO STANDS HERE IN 945 01:24:04.036 --> 01:24:12.602 HACKENSACK ALTHOUGH I WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO DRIVE TO TRENTON. IT IS NOT THE 946 01:24:12.602 --> 01:24:16.611 TECHNOLOGY THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH IT IS WHAT THE RESULT OF THE REVIEW AN 947 01:24:16.611 --> 01:24:20.470 DISCUSSION IS. THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING SACRED ABOUT THAT OTHERWISE WE WOULDN'T 948 01:24:20.470 --> 01:24:25.561 BE BACK TO THE 12TH JURY AND TALKING ABOUT THE GRAND JURY AND THE MAGNA CART TA 949 01:24:25.561 --> 01:24:30.686 THERE HAS TO BE A VALUE SO WHERE IS THE VALUE, WHERE IS THE VALUE, I BELIEVE 950 01:24:30.686 --> 01:24:35.638 IT IS THE PROCESS OF REVIEW AND DELIBERATION BY 23 CITIZENS IN THIS 951 01:24:35.638 --> 01:24:37.936 SITUATION. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: I THINK WE'VE HEARD YOUR 952 01:24:37.936 --> 01:24:43.081 POSITION, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD, MR. NEARY. 953 01:24:43.081 --> 01:24:46.780 BRIAN J. NEARY: CHIEF JUSTICE OTHER THAN TO THANK YOU AN THE OTHER JUSTICE NOR 954 01:24:46.780 --> 01:24:56.632 THE OPPORTUNITIES TO ARGUE TODAY'S, I THANK YOU. RANDOLPH E. MERSHON, 955 01:24:56.632 --> 01:24:57.387 III THE VIFRN WULT GARAGE PROCEEDS RGZ OR NEITHER UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR. 956 01:24:57.387 --> 01:25:03.337 BASED ON PRECEDENT CHAL LEFRNSS THE WORKING GROUP OF THE JOUR YAER CROW 88 ADD PLAN THAT 957 01:25:03.337 --> 01:25:07.736 ALLOWS THE JUSTICES TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE IN BOTH A MANNER AND HONOR THE DEFENDANTS RIGHTS, 958 01:25:07.736 --> 01:25:12.141 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO GRAND JURY AND PROTECTED THE HEALTHTH SAFETY OF ALL OF THOSE WHO 959 01:25:12.141 --> 01:25:18.143 TEP CLOE PARTICIPATE IN THOUGH THOEGS PROCEEDINGS, NEERL ONE 84LY TO DATE REASON 960 01:25:18.143 --> 01:25:21.666 MANY STATES AROUND THE COUNTRY ENTERED INTO A PERIOD OF UNCERTAINTY. A STATEWIDE LOCK 961 01:25:21.666 --> 01:25:28.095 DOWN TEACHERS TRANSITION TO A INDIVIDUAL FORMAT AND ENTIRE WORK FORCE LGS TRANSITIONED 962 01:25:28.095 --> 01:25:33.647 TO A TELL COMMUTE MODEL AND THE JOUSH YAER WAS NO DIFFERENT. IN MARCH OF 963 01:25:33.647 --> 01:25:39.807 TWOJ TWENTIES LITTLE WAS KNOWN ABOUT THE COVID-19 HAVE I WHIZ IT SPREAD RAPIDLY FROM 964 01:25:39.807 --> 01:25:46.211 PERSON TO PERSON CONTACT. PRIOR TO THE PAND, R PANDEMIC BY THE LOCK DOWN FOR THE USUAL 965 01:25:46.211 --> 01:25:51.400 YAER BY ITS VERY NATURE THE WORK IN THE COURTHOUSES INVOLVED THAT PERSON TO PERSON 966 01:25:51.400 --> 01:25:56.505 CONTACT WHETHER THAT BE THE STATUS CONFERENCES, TESTIMONIAL HEARINGS, JURY TRIALS, GRAND JURY 967 01:25:56.505 --> 01:26:01.935 PROCEEDINGS ARE JUST THE SIMPLE FILING OF DOCUMENTS. NOW, A OVER THE COURSE OF THE 968 01:26:01.935 --> 01:26:06.421 LAST YEAR THIS COURT HAS TRANSITION TODZ A VIRTUAL FORMAT IN A MANNER THAT PROTECTS THE 969 01:26:06.421 --> 01:26:10.326 PANT HAENLT AND SAFETY AND HONORS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT. THE 970 01:26:10.326 --> 01:26:16.073 COURTS HAVE KUKTD OVER 1 HUNDRED THOUSAND COURT WIFRN PO TWOZ MILLION PARTICIPANTS VIRTUALLY 971 01:26:16.073 --> 01:26:20.946 AND WHILE CERTAIN EVENTS WERE ABLE TO PROCEED VIRTUALLY, THE WORKING GROUP WAS ESTABLISHED 972 01:26:20.946 --> 01:26:26.133 ONE PARTICULAR GOAL IN MIND THAT WAS THE RESUMPTION OF GRAND JURY IN VIRTUAL FORMAT. 973 01:26:26.133 --> 01:26:30.033 THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE THE PRESSURE THAT WAS PLACED ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AS THOUSANDS 974 01:26:30.033 --> 01:26:35.017 OF DEFENDANTS WERE DETAPE WITHOUT THEIR CASE BEING PRESENTED TO GRAND JURY. ON TOP OF 975 01:26:35.017 --> 01:26:39.309 THAT, THOUSAND OFS NONDOUGH TAKEN DEFENDANTS LIKE THIS ONE REMAINS RELEASE CONDITIONS 976 01:26:39.309 --> 01:26:44.159 WHILE THEY WAIT FOR THE CASE TO PRESENT THEIR CASE TO GRAND JURY. THE PLAN 977 01:26:44.159 --> 01:26:49.732 DIVIDES WORK IN KAULT TAGS WITH THIS COURT ALLOW FOR THE RESUM SHUP OF GRAND JURIES IN 978 01:26:49.732 --> 01:26:55.312 A CONSTITUTIONALLY AK SEP AL MANNER, INDIVIDUAL FO MAT MRENT THROW THOUSAND CASE STATEWIDE 979 01:26:55.312 --> 01:27:00.255 CHIN CLUEDED 70 DEFENDANT WHO'S RECEIVED FULL NO BILLS AS WELL A 190 DEFENDANT WHO'S RECEIVED 980 01:27:00.255 --> 01:27:07.218 PARTIAL NO BILLS AND AS KNOWN BY THIS COURT IN ITS ORDERS THAT, SIFRTS AN OBVIOUSLY 981 01:27:07.218 --> 01:27:10.636 COMPELLING NEEDS FOR A CONTINUES WAGS OF GARAGE IN A VIRTUAL CORE FORMAT UNTIL SUCH IN 982 01:27:10.636 --> 01:27:14.919 PERSON PROCEEDINGS HAVE COULDN'T AND THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE DEFENSE IN AMICUS IN 983 01:27:14.919 --> 01:27:20.550 NO WAY SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE VIRTUAL PROCESS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THEIR OPPOSING 984 01:27:20.550 --> 01:27:25.204 THEE ARE THE CAN YOU TELL THISHS DO NOT EXIST HAD IN PRACHT THE VERGE WUL GRAND JURY PROCESS 985 01:27:25.204 --> 01:27:29.910 IS CREATIVE SOLUTION IN DIFFICULT TIMES BUT COMPORTS WITH THE PROTECTIONS AFFORDED TO THE 986 01:27:29.910 --> 01:27:34.936 DEFENDANT BY THE CONSTITUTION. WHILE SINAL TAKEN YUG THE PROTECT THE HEALTHTH SAFE TEEF 987 01:27:34.936 --> 01:27:40.122 ALL THAT PARTICIPATE. FROM HERE MY ARGUE MANY WILL HAVE A 3 AREAS THAT THE WERE ADDRESSED 988 01:27:40.122 --> 01:27:45.176 HERE DAN I WELCOME ANY QUESTION ALONG THE WAY. FIRST, THIS COURT DID THE 989 01:27:45.176 --> 01:27:50.399 NO EXCEED ITS ROLL MAKING A AUTHORITY DURING THE GRAND JURY PROCESS IT MOD CASE WAS PER 990 01:27:50.399 --> 01:27:54.638 MISSIBLE BECAUSE IT WAS A MODIFICATION TO THE PROCEDURAL PROCEDURES OF HOW A GRAND JURY 991 01:27:54.638 --> 01:28:01.836 HEAR AS CASE. REGARDING THE EVIDENCE TO BE PRE THE SECRECY REQUIREMENTS OR THE OATH THAT, 992 01:28:01.836 --> 01:28:05.724 THE VOTING REQUIREMENTS AND THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT ITSELF ARE NOT 993 01:28:05.724 --> 01:28:10.536 CHANGED BY THIS COURT'S ORDER. AND THE DEFENSE ARGUES THAT THE MODIFICATION ADD ADD AN 994 01:28:10.536 --> 01:28:17.087 EXTRA STATUTORY FACTOR TO REQUIRE TECHNOLOGY OF THE INNOCENT OF INTERNET WILL THAT DOES 995 01:28:17.087 --> 01:28:21.200 NOT, SIFRT AS A EBBS TRA STAPT TOWER FAK FOR BECAUSE AS WE'VE SEEN IN THE ROAR THE JUSH 996 01:28:21.200 --> 01:28:28.592 YAERN A O C HAVE ELIMINATED IN DOUBT. THEY WILL SUPPLY ANY GRAJ JUROR WHO REQUESTS ATE 997 01:28:28.592 --> 01:28:34.551 TABLET WITH INTERNET CAPABILITIES. WE'VE SEEN FROM CERTIFICATIONS THAT 1 THOUSAND GRAND 998 01:28:34.551 --> 01:28:39.671 JURORS HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE VIRTUAL PROCESS AND 150 DEVICES HAVE BEEN HANDED OUT BOTH 999 01:28:39.671 --> 01:28:45.526 IN THE SELECTION PROCESS AND BOTH IN THE GRAND JURY, THE GRAND JURY SELECTED, AND THAT WAS 1000 01:28:45.526 --> 01:28:50.249 SPECIFICALLY FOR 21 GRAND JURORS IN MERCER COUNTY. AND THE SEA A MODZ OCCASION ONLY TO 1001 01:28:50.249 --> 01:28:55.481 HOW A PROCEEDING IS HEARD. WITH REGARD TO THE VIRTUAL GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS, 1002 01:28:55.481 --> 01:29:01.696 THEY'RE NOT IN AND OF SHEMSZ FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR. THE AS I'VE SAID, THEY PRESENT THE 1003 01:29:01.696 --> 01:29:05.863 ORETICAL ISSUES THAT DO NOT EXIST IN PRACTICE. AND ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN 1004 01:29:05.863 --> 01:29:12.047 PRESENTED ARE NOT UNIQUE TO THE VIRTUAL SETTING. AND THEY CAN BE ADDS DREFRD ON A CASE-BY-CASE 1005 01:29:12.047 --> 01:29:17.403 BASIS VIA A STANDARD MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT. THE ARGUMENT THAT 1006 01:29:17.403 --> 01:29:21.923 THE REPRESENT THE INDIVIDUAL GRAND JURIES DO NOT REPRESENT FAIR CROSS-SECTION OF THE COMMUNE 1007 01:29:21.923 --> 01:29:27.454 DMT BECAUSE THEY LEAVE OUT POOR OR ELDERLY CITIZENS JUST DOES NOT EXIST IN THIS CASE. 1008 01:29:27.454 --> 01:29:35.549 THE GRAND JURORS ARE PROVIDE WID A TABLETS AS I SAID AND WITH THE INFORMATION THEY ARE 1009 01:29:35.549 --> 01:29:42.245 GIVEN ON HOW TO USE THAT TECHNOLOGY, AS WE'VE SEEN FROM MS. EYE VR IORIO CERTIFICATION 1010 01:29:42.245 --> 01:29:49.405 SHE CONTACTED EACH THE GRAND JUROR AND IT WAS SLEKTD PRIOR TO THE PANDEMIC BUT THEY HAD 1011 01:29:49.405 --> 01:29:54.388 FOUR DATES WHERE THEY HEARD CASE IN PERSON AND THAT WAS BECAUSE OF A QUALIFICATION THEY WERE 1012 01:29:54.388 --> 01:30:01.061 NO LONGER IN MER SOO COUNTY RES DEN. THE GRAND JURORS WERE ASKED IF THEY NEED TO BE 1013 01:30:01.061 --> 01:30:07.828 PROVIDED TABLETS, 5 OF THEM WERE, AND THEY WERE GIVEN ORIENTATIONS AND AN ON GOING PROGRAM 1014 01:30:07.828 --> 01:30:14.739 TO TEACH THEM HOW TO USE IT. THEY WERE SHOWN HOW TO AS WE'VE DESCRIBED AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED 1015 01:30:14.739 --> 01:30:20.192 TODAY, HOW TO UNMUTE AND MUTE THEPSZ, IF THEY HAD A TECHNICAL ISSUES. ON TOP OF THAT, 1016 01:30:20.192 --> 01:30:25.635 THE JUDICIARY PRACTICES PROVIDED I T STAFF IS TO EVERY SINGLE JUROR TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION 1017 01:30:25.635 --> 01:30:31.161 THEY HAD AT ALL TIMES. THE CERTIFICATION ESTABLISHED A CONTINUED CHECK IN FROM THE 1018 01:30:31.161 --> 01:30:34.833 GRAND JURORS AND TO MAKE THUR SURE THE TECHNOLOGY IS WORKING AND THEY KNOW HOW TO USE IT. 1019 01:30:34.833 --> 01:30:41.871 NOW, THE COURTS ORDERS AND ALSO THE DIRECTIVES THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED ESTABLISH 1020 01:30:41.871 --> 01:30:50.780 SAFEGUARDS TO AND SURE GRAND JURY SECRECY AS WELL. THEY ARE REQUIRED BEFORE EVERY HEAR 1021 01:30:50.780 --> 01:30:56.595 ING TO DO A 360-DEGREE VIEW OF, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO CHECK IN AND THEY'RE REQUIRED TO MAKE 1022 01:30:56.595 --> 01:31:02.334 AN ACCOUNTS OF THE JUDICIARY ESTABLISH IS THE PERSON THAT IS APPEARING IS THE GRAND JUROR. 1023 01:31:02.334 --> 01:31:08.675 NOW, DURING THE HEARING ITSELF, THE ITEMS SPECIFICALLY IN THIS CASE, THE ASSISTANT 1024 01:31:08.675 --> 01:31:16.254 PROSECUTOR ASKED NUMEROUS TIMES IF ANYBODY ELSE, EXCUSE ME, ASK IF THEY CAN STILL HEAR 1025 01:31:16.254 --> 01:31:22.333 WHICH WAS GOING TO BE MY NEXT POINT REGARDING TECHNOLOGY BUT THE FOREPERSON DOES ASK 1026 01:31:22.333 --> 01:31:27.445 NUMEROUS TIMES AND THEY WERE GIVEN INSTRUCTION REGARDING THE PENALTIES IF THAT SECRECY 1027 01:31:27.445 --> 01:31:34.604 WAS VIOLATED. NOW, FINALLY FORTS REVERSAL FORMAT DOES NOT UNDERMINE THE 1028 01:31:34.604 --> 01:31:40.108 GRAVPT TO GRAND JURY TO HEAR A CASE. A. THE TECHNOLOGY ISSUE THAT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE 1029 01:31:40.108 --> 01:31:46.593 OF JUPD MINE ANY DOCUMENTS PRESENTED IN THIS CASE OR ANY RT STATEWIDE THE PRE DELIBERATION 1030 01:31:46.593 --> 01:31:53.629 AND POST DELIBERATION TECHNOLOGICAL XHEKS FIRST THE GRAND JURIES ARE HEARING THE EVIDENCE 1031 01:31:53.629 --> 01:31:58.369 THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THEP, THEY WILL THEN GO INTO THE GRAND JURY ROOM, DELIBERATE 1032 01:31:58.369 --> 01:32:03.999 PRIVATELY AND THEN COME BACK OUT. THEY WILL THEN AT THAT POINT GIVE THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT 1033 01:32:03.999 --> 01:32:11.995 AND INSTRUCTION THAT THEY DIDN'T DENY TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUES WHICH ARE THE TWRO CORE 1034 01:32:11.995 --> 01:32:17.431 TO HAERTS EVIDENCE AND DELIBERATE IF A CASE HAS BEEN PRESENTED AND IN THIS CASE THE ASSISTANT 1035 01:32:17.431 --> 01:32:22.279 PROSECUTOR SEVERAL TIMES ASK EVERYONE COULD STL HEAR HERN I SUBMIT THAT WAS A MATTER OF 1036 01:32:22.279 --> 01:32:28.202 COURSE IN THIS CASE AS A COULDN'T DPIRM THAT THE GRAND JURORS WERE HEARING THE EVIDENCE 1037 01:32:28.202 --> 01:32:34.619 THAT WAS BEING PRESENTED. THERE IS OBVIOUSLY ANY TIME TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUES CAN 1038 01:32:34.619 --> 01:32:41.728 OCCUR, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE WHOLESALE FINDING THAT THE ENTIRE PROCESS IS 1039 01:32:41.728 --> 01:32:47.403 UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IT MAY CALL INTO QUESTION THAT SPECIFIC INDICTMENT, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING 1040 01:32:47.403 --> 01:32:52.793 THAT CAN BE FLUSHED OUT NORMALLY TLUT PROCESS OF A MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT. 1041 01:32:52.793 --> 01:33:02.170 NOW, FINALLY, THE DEFENDANT EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS ARE NOT SLIGHTED IN THIS 1042 01:33:02.170 --> 01:33:06.256 CASE. A. THE STATE HONORED ITS RIGHTS T A GRAND JURY BY PRESENTING CASE. 1043 01:33:06.256 --> 01:33:12.715 STPHAO: HIERARCHY EXISTS THAT DETAINED DEFENDANTS TRIERD HAVE THEIR CASES PRESENTED SFOR 1044 01:33:12.715 --> 01:33:21.144 NONDETAINED DEFENDANTS, AND CONSENT IS NOT A SOLUTION IN THIS CASE. IT IS NOT, IT ADDS 1045 01:33:21.144 --> 01:33:28.120 AN ELEMENT TO THE CASE THAT NORMALLY DOES NOT EXIST FOR THE STATE, RESTAEN THE MER SHER 1046 01:33:28.120 --> 01:33:34.298 KOUN TOE WAS SELECTED AS PILOT PROGRAM, THE CHOOSING OF MERCER COUNTY OR BERGEN KOUN TOE 1047 01:33:34.298 --> 01:33:40.111 AS PILOT DOES NOT FINE THE PROCESS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IT WAS A WAY FOR THE COURT 1048 01:33:40.111 --> 01:33:45.732 STAFF AND THE PROSECUTOR WHO IN MERCER COUNTY WAS HEAD OF THIS COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S ASSOCIATION 1049 01:33:45.732 --> 01:33:54.131 AT THE TIME TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES THAT MIGHT HAVE HABD AND TEST OUT THE, TEST OUT THE 1050 01:33:54.131 --> 01:34:01.029 KINKS IF IT WERE, IN THE SYSTEM. BUT THE THE ONLY ARGUMENTS THAT WERE RAISED ARE THE 1051 01:34:01.029 --> 01:34:06.092 ORETICAL BUT THE PRACTICE HAD NOT EXIST, THERE'S NOT MANY CASES WHERE SECRECY HAS BEEN 1052 01:34:06.092 --> 01:34:12.503 VIOLATED, THERE'S NOT BEEN ANY ISSUES RAISED WHERE THE TECHNOLOGICAL KNOW HOW HAS PREBTS 1053 01:34:12.503 --> 01:34:17.301 ADD JUROR FROM HEARING A KACHLS EVERY GRAND JUROR THAT WEFRTED A TABLET HAD BEEN PROVIDED 1054 01:34:17.301 --> 01:34:23.614 ONE. WITH THAT UNLESS KWURNS HAVE ANY QUESTION THE STATE WOULD SUBMIT. CHIEF 1055 01:34:23.614 --> 01:34:28.218 JUSTICE RABNER: MR. MERSHON SHOULD PROBLEMS BE DOING SOMETHING MORE TO CREATE A CLEAR 1056 01:34:28.218 --> 01:34:32.303 RECORD IN THESE CASES. RANDOLPH E. MERSHON, III THERE'S EN SERJ AN ABILITY 1057 01:34:32.303 --> 01:34:36.975 TO FOR THE PARTICULAR TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION OR TO RT STATE WHAT'S P HAD AING ON THE RECORD 1058 01:34:36.975 --> 01:34:43.349 BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE'RE COULDN'T STAIN TO THE 4 CORNERS OF THE DOCUMENT. THERE SHOULD BE 1059 01:34:43.349 --> 01:34:49.653 A WAY TO DO THAT, THOUGH, WITHOUT JUDICIAL INTERVENTIONTH THE ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR CAN 1060 01:34:49.653 --> 01:34:54.092 STATE ON THE RECORD WHAT THE THEY ARE REVIEWING ON THE CAMERA AS THEY WOULD IN THE ROOM. 1061 01:34:54.092 --> 01:35:02.524 AND WHETHER STHB A SIMPLE AS I'M NOT SEEING ANY HANDS. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: 1062 01:35:02.524 --> 01:35:08.617 OTHER QUESTIONS ANYONE? MUCH ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO YOUR PRESENTATION. 1063 01:35:08.617 --> 01:35:11.315 RANDOLPH E. MERSHON, III: NO, THAURN. THANK YOU. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: 1064 01:35:11.315 --> 01:35:14.500 THANK YOU, MS. HENDERSON S. CAROL M. HENDERSON: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. 1065 01:35:14.500 --> 01:35:18.458 I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT A LOT OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY ALL THE OTHER PARTIES 1066 01:35:18.458 --> 01:35:23.751 IN THIS CASE, BUT I JIFRT WANT TO HIGHLIGHT A FEW THINGS ON BEHALF OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1067 01:35:23.751 --> 01:35:28.779 'S OOFS, AETS APPARENT FROM THE ARGUE MANIES THAT NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO POIBTS TO ANY 1068 01:35:28.779 --> 01:35:34.509 WALL LAW OR ANY STATUTE THAT WOULD PROHIBIT A VIRTUAL GARAGE IN THIS CASE. SO ESSENTIALLY 1069 01:35:34.509 --> 01:35:40.320 IT'S AN APPLICATION A TACK ON WHAT'S HAPPENING AND SPECULATION THAT SOMEHOW THERE'S AN 1070 01:35:40.320 --> 01:35:46.185 EN FEAR GRAND JURY PROCESS BY THE FACT IT'S DONE VIRTUALLY. AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1071 01:35:46.185 --> 01:35:51.004 'S OFFICE COULDN'T DENDZ THAT IS NOT THE CASE MUCH. WITH RESPECT TO THE GRAND 1072 01:35:51.004 --> 01:35:56.933 JURY SECRECY, ATTEMPTSES HAVE BEEN MADE TO DO EVERYTHING T POSSIBLE TO ENSURE THE SECRECY 1073 01:35:56.933 --> 01:36:01.258 OF THE GRAND JURY IS PRESERVED AND FOR THE FACT THAT GRAND JURORS HAVE BEEN OPERATING 1074 01:36:01.258 --> 01:36:06.926 VIRTUALLY OVER THIS PERIOD OF TIME AND THERE'S BEEN NOTHING THAT SUGGESTED THE SECRECY 1075 01:36:06.926 --> 01:36:14.356 OF THE GRAND JURY HAS BEEN AFFECTED IN ANY WAY. AS PROSECUTOR MERSHON POINT OUT THERE'S 1076 01:36:14.356 --> 01:36:20.773 A 360 VIEW OF THE ROOM, THE GRAND JURORS ARE INSTRUCTED ON THEIR DUTIES OF THEIR OATH, 1077 01:36:20.773 --> 01:36:26.232 THE PENALTIES IF THEY DON'T, AND WE'RE ASSUMING THEY'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THEIR OATH AND 1078 01:36:26.232 --> 01:36:30.142 THERE ARE OTHER PROCEDURES IN PLACE, SEVERAL COUNTIES EN CHUDZING THE STATE GRAND JURY 1079 01:36:30.142 --> 01:36:35.628 HAVE ATTORNEYS THAT MONITOR THE PROCEEDINGS IN ADDITION TO THE ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR OR 1080 01:36:35.628 --> 01:36:41.401 D A G PRESENTING THE CASE. TO WAFRP THE GRAND JURORS IF THERE'S ANY PROBLEMS OR IF WE 1081 01:36:41.401 --> 01:36:45.809 SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE IS NOT WATCHING THE SCREEN, IF SOMEONE GETS UP TO TRY TO LEAVE 1082 01:36:45.809 --> 01:36:50.783 THE ROOM, IF SOMEONE ELSE KOMENT IN THE ROOM, IF THEY SEE ANYTHING THAT'S A PROBLEM. 1083 01:36:50.783 --> 01:36:57.224 AND THERE'S ALSO AN ADDITIONAL MEMBER FROM THE THE GRAND JURY MANAGE RS OFFICE WHO WAS 1084 01:36:57.224 --> 01:37:03.357 ALSO WATCHING NTS COUNTIES THAT DON'T HAVE ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS, D A Gs WATCHING. SO 1085 01:37:03.357 --> 01:37:09.137 WE'RE TAKING EVERY PRECAUTION WE CAN. AS IT WAS POIND OUT THAT MANY OF THE CONCERNS VOICED 1086 01:37:09.137 --> 01:37:15.257 BY THE DEFENSE AND THE DEFENSE AMICI HAVE TO DO WITH A JURORS ALREADY VIOLATING THEIR 1087 01:37:15.257 --> 01:37:20.716 OATH ARE GOING TO BE DOING EXTRA RESEARCH AND AS THE CURRENT CONCERN WAS POINTED OUT, 1088 01:37:20.716 --> 01:37:26.720 THIS COULD BE ACTUAL APPLIED TO PETIT JURORS TO GO HOME. SO WE DON'T THING IT'S A VIABLE 1089 01:37:26.720 --> 01:37:30.364 CONCERN. WITH RESPECT TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM, I DON'T THINK THERE'S 1090 01:37:30.364 --> 01:37:35.537 ANY BASIS TO FIND THAT THE VIRTUE OF THE GRAND JURY IS ANY LESS OF A GRAND JURY THAN AN 1091 01:37:35.537 --> 01:37:41.697 IN PERSON ONE. THAT THE SAME PROCEDURES ARE USED TO EMPANEL THE GRAND JURY, THE SAME 1092 01:37:41.697 --> 01:37:47.846 EXCUSAL RS DONE, THE SAME PRNT TAGS IS DONE, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS INSTEAD OF BEING A 1093 01:37:47.846 --> 01:37:53.640 IN A ROOM TOGETHER, THEY'RE VIRTUALLY IN A ROOM. AND I THINK, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE 1094 01:37:53.640 --> 01:38:02.619 HAVE TO BE IN THE ACTUAL ROOM TOGETHER FOR THEIR DELIBERATIONS TO BE ANY MORE, THE DEFENDANT 1095 01:38:02.619 --> 01:38:07.828 'S THAN THEY DO VIRTUALLY. I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY FLAWS IN THIS GRAND JURY 1096 01:38:07.828 --> 01:38:14.163 PRESENTATION, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY PROSECUTOR MERSHON THAT STEPS ALONG THE WAY WERE ASKED, 1097 01:38:14.163 --> 01:38:20.951 YOU KNOW, DO YOU HAVE ANY TECHNICAL ISSUES, DO YOU AGREE, I THINK IN THE FUTURE THAT JUST 1098 01:38:20.951 --> 01:38:26.365 LIKE IN IN PERSON PROCEEDINGS WHERE YOU RELY ON SOMEONE'S SILENCE AS ACQUISITION, YOU KNOW, 1099 01:38:26.365 --> 01:38:31.506 WHEN WE SAY DID YOU HEAR ERG OR DO YOU HAVE ANY ISSUES, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, SILENCE 1100 01:38:31.506 --> 01:38:37.114 HAS BEEN DEEMED ENOUGH IN IN PERSON. AND THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON IN THE VIRTUAL. BUT 1101 01:38:37.114 --> 01:38:41.842 PERHAPS BECAUSE OF THE VIRTUAL, WE MAY JUST SAY, CAN WE HAVE A SHOW OF HANDS AND THEN 1102 01:38:41.842 --> 01:38:48.967 HAVE THE PROSECUTOR SAY I SEE NO HANDS RIDGE, WHICH WAS DONE PARTIALLY IN THIS CASE AND 1103 01:38:48.967 --> 01:38:53.342 I THINK IN OTHER CASE WHERE THEY ASK AND THERE'S NO SOUND IT DIDN'T MEAN THEY DIDN'T HEAR 1104 01:38:53.342 --> 01:38:58.176 YOU. AND I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT WHERE THEY ALLEGATION IS MADE THAT BECAUSE 1105 01:38:58.176 --> 01:39:04.012 OF THE JURORS DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING, PROBABLY THEY DIDN'T HEAR THEM. WELL, IT WAS POINTED 1106 01:39:04.012 --> 01:39:09.761 OUT PEOPLE AREN'T MUTE ALL THE TYPE, IF PEOPLE ARE SAYING SOMETHING THEY DON'T HEAR 1107 01:39:09.761 --> 01:39:14.786 ANYTHING, THEY'RE RARELY MADE AWARE WE CAN'T SEE YOU, WE CAN'T SEE WHAT YOU'RE SDOG AND 1108 01:39:14.786 --> 01:39:19.603 I CAN'T BELIEVE WHETHER IT'S ONE OR DWE GRANDZ JURORS WHO ARE LISTENING AND A PROSECUTOR 1109 01:39:19.603 --> 01:39:23.650 IS SAYING SOMETHING AND THEY SEE HM MOVING HIS MOUTH AND NOT SAYING ANYTHING THAT NO 1110 01:39:23.650 --> 01:39:28.943 ONE IS NOT GOING TO SAYING ABOUT IT. NOW, THERE HAVE BEEN CASES WHERE THERE 1111 01:39:28.943 --> 01:39:33.041 HAVE BEEN TECHNOLOGICAL PROBLEMS WITH INDIVIDUAL JURORS, THAT THE INTERNET MAY GO OUT, 1112 01:39:33.041 --> 01:39:38.442 SOUND MAY GO OUT. IN THOSE CASES, THEY'RE IMMEDIATELY TAKEN CARRY OF BY THE STAFF, THE 1113 01:39:38.442 --> 01:39:44.364 GRAND JUROR STAFF THAT IS MONITORING THE CASE. AND IF SOMEONE HAS MISSED TOO MUCH OF THE 1114 01:39:44.364 --> 01:39:49.775 PRESENTATION, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE ON THE CASE. AND THAT BRINGS ME TO MY FINAL 1115 01:39:49.775 --> 01:39:55.802 POINT, IS THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION THAT, YOU KNOW, DELFINO, MURPHY, HOE BEGAN 1116 01:39:55.802 --> 01:40:00.924 AND SHE WAS, THE PRINCIPLE SHOULD APPLY HERE AND THOSE PRINCIPLES ARE BEING APPLIED HERE 1117 01:40:00.924 --> 01:40:05.946 IN DELFINO SAYS YOU CAN'T VOTE UNLESS THEY'RE A QUALIFIED GRAND JURY MEANS YOU ARE HEARD 1118 01:40:05.946 --> 01:40:10.018 ALL THE TESTIMONY. IF GRAND JURORS DID NOT HEAR THE.COM BECAUSE THEY WERE TECHNOLOGICAL 1119 01:40:10.018 --> 01:40:17.856 ISSUES, THEY DON'T VOTE. ON MURPHY, IF SOMEONE HAS A PROBLEM IN TERMS OF THAT THEY HAVE 1120 01:40:17.856 --> 01:40:24.134 A CONNECTION TO ANY OF THE WITNESSES OR ANY OF THE CASES, MUST HAVE FEE MOTION IS MADE 1121 01:40:24.134 --> 01:40:29.444 AND THEY GO IN FRONT OF A JUDGE AND THEY DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN PART IN IT T PAT 1122 01:40:29.444 --> 01:40:35.216 IN THE CASE, WITH H O G A N DEALS WITH SOCIAL SECURITY EX PULL AT A TOWER EVIDENCE IN 1123 01:40:35.216 --> 01:40:40.895 FRCHT GRAND JURY, IT IS DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY'RE IN PERSON OR VERGE WUL, CONSIDERATIONS 1124 01:40:40.895 --> 01:40:45.251 ARE GOING TO APPLY AND THAT WOULD BE THE CASE THAT THE DEFENSE CAN BRING A MOTION BECAUSE 1125 01:40:45.251 --> 01:40:49.576 MOST THE TIMELY ALLEGATION IS THAT EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE WAS NOT PRESENTED AND THAT WOULDN'T 1126 01:40:49.576 --> 01:40:54.321 MATTER WHETHER IT WAS IN PERSON OR VIRTUAL. AND THE FINAL POINT ABOUT SHAW, 1127 01:40:54.321 --> 01:40:59.133 SHAW HAS TO DO WITH MULTIPLE GRAND JURY PRESENTATIONS AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER 1128 01:40:59.133 --> 01:41:04.486 IT'S VIRTUAL OR IN PERSON, THE SAME CHALLENGE SHOULD BE MADE. SO ALTHOUGH THE 1129 01:41:04.486 --> 01:41:10.196 CONSTITUTIONAL AND GRAND JURY CASES ARE THAT ARE RELIED UPON OR ALL COMPLIED UPON IN THE 1130 01:41:10.196 --> 01:41:17.144 VIRTUAL GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS. I MEAN THESE ARE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. SOMETHING 1131 01:41:17.144 --> 01:41:22.279 HAD TO BE DONE WHEN EVERYTHING STARTED, NO ONE KNEW WHEN THE GRAND JURY PROCESS STOPPED 1132 01:41:22.279 --> 01:41:27.651 AND JURY TRIALS STOPPED HOW LONG IT WAS GOING TO GO ON AND AS IT CONTINUED, THE ALTERNATIVE 1133 01:41:27.651 --> 01:41:33.622 TO NOTHING WAS NOT AN OPTION. THAT, YOU CAN, SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE AND THE QUESTION 1134 01:41:33.622 --> 01:41:38.513 HERE IS WHETHER IT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONTENDS THAT THIS WAS 1135 01:41:38.513 --> 01:41:43.154 A CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS THAT WAS ADOPTED TO DEAL WITH THESE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. 1136 01:41:43.154 --> 01:41:48.423 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: MS. HENDERSON, CAN YOU CLARIFY ONE THING WHEN YOU 1137 01:41:48.423 --> 01:41:53.712 MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE ADDITIONAL STAFF SERVING THE GRAND JURORS TO MAKE THUR THERE 1138 01:41:53.712 --> 01:41:57.275 WERE NO PROBLEMS, I TAKE THE YOU WERE EPT REFERRING TO THE PRESENTATION PORTION OF THE 1139 01:41:57.275 --> 01:42:01.511 GRAND JURY PROCEEDING. CAROL M. HENDERSON: YES. CHIEF JUSTICE 1140 01:42:01.511 --> 01:42:05.137 RABNER: WERE YOU ALSO DISCUSSING TLIB RAGSS. CAROL M. HENDERSON: ABSOLUTELY 1141 01:42:05.137 --> 01:42:10.710 NOT, ABSOLUTELY NOT. NO ONE IS ISN'T THE DELIBERATIONS EXCEPT THE JAND VR GRAND JURORS 1142 01:42:10.710 --> 01:42:15.386 THEMSELVES. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANYBODY FROM THE GRAND JURY 1143 01:42:15.386 --> 01:42:20.395 INVOLVED, IF THERE'S A GRAND JURY MANAGER OR NOT. QUITE FRANKLY WE DON'T KNOW THAT OFFHAND 1144 01:42:20.395 --> 01:42:24.986 BUT CERTAINLY NIERS PROSECUTORS. SO I THINK THE GRAND JURORS JUST LIKE THEY ARE IN PERSON, 1145 01:42:24.986 --> 01:42:30.291 THEIR DELIBERATIONS ARE THE SAME AS VIRTUALLY. BUT IF ANY, IF THERE ARE ANY TECHNICAL 1146 01:42:30.291 --> 01:42:34.286 PROBLEMS THEY CERTAINLY WOULD KNOW HOW TO CONTACT SOMEONE TO SAY WE'RE DELIBERATING AND 1147 01:42:34.286 --> 01:42:40.718 WE JUST LOST TWO JURORS, BUT THE DELIBERATION PROCESS IS THE SAME IN PERSON AND VIRTUAL, 1148 01:42:40.718 --> 01:42:47.328 THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE COMMUNICATING VIA ZOOM. RACK RAB QUESTIONS 1149 01:42:47.328 --> 01:42:51.881 ANYONE? ANYTHING ELSE MS. HENDERSON? CAROL M. HENDERSON: NO, THAT'S ALL. 1150 01:42:51.881 --> 01:42:55.322 THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: THANK YOU MR. FURLONG UFR 1151 01:42:55.322 --> 01:42:58.916 THE LAST WORD THIS MORNING. JOHN S. FURLONG: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. AND 1152 01:42:58.916 --> 01:43:07.900 THE LAST POINT I WAS REVIEWING THE JURY COMMISSION EEJ IT WAS PARAGRAPH 2 1153 01:43:07.900 --> 01:43:13.190 CERTIFICATION FINAL AND IT'S WET, YOU KNOW, RULE 36 SGS IS PRETTY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHO CAN 1154 01:43:13.190 --> 01:43:18.888 BE PRERNT IN THE GRAND JURY, APPARENTLY THERE WERE THREE ADDITIONAL GRAND JURIES AND 1155 01:43:18.888 --> 01:43:24.315 APPARENTLY THEIR ADDITIONAL PROSECUTORS AS WELL. I BELIEVE FRTS TRANSCRIPT THE PROSECUTORS 1156 01:43:24.315 --> 01:43:30.779 WERE NOT IN THE, BUT I DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT THE GRAND JURY STAFF WAS NOT PRESENT AND THAT 1157 01:43:30.779 --> 01:43:36.662 APPEAR TO BE THE ISSUE OF WITH MERSHON WHETHER THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE PROSECUTOR SHOULD BE 1158 01:43:36.662 --> 01:43:42.832 DOING AND MY CONCERN IS WHEN I GO BACK TO THE ISSUE ABOUT TECHNICAL ISSUES THERE HAS TO 1159 01:43:42.832 --> 01:43:50.798 BE WHETHER THERE ARE ANY TECHNICAL, NOT AS PETIT EVERY SINGLE DAY AFTER THEY COME BACK 1160 01:43:50.798 --> 01:43:55.658 THE NEXT DAY, TOLD WHEN THEY LEAVE AND THEY'RE ASKED WHEN THEY COME NTS NEXT MORNING IF 1161 01:43:55.658 --> 01:43:59.558 ANYONE ACCESS A CELL PHONE OR ALLOW ANOTHER PERSON IN THE ROOM OR CONSULT ANY OUTSIDE 1162 01:43:59.558 --> 01:44:07.914 SOURCE, THAT I WANT TO MAKE BRIEFLY THE STATEMENT THAT YOU'RE WE'RE ASKING THIS COURTS 1163 01:44:07.914 --> 01:44:12.716 TO FINE TECHNICAL T I WANT TO ASK A QUESTION THAT THEY WOULD ASK IN PERSON AND INDEED 1164 01:44:12.716 --> 01:44:20.232 BECAUSE WRE DON'T HAVE ANY ACCESS BRAKEOUT ROOM WORKS IN DELIBERATION, WE DON'T KNOW WITH 1165 01:44:20.232 --> 01:44:25.962 THE SAME TECH FOEB BIK PEOPLE VTS OPPORTUNITY WITH THEIR FELLOW GRAND JURORS HOW THAT'S 1166 01:44:25.962 --> 01:44:33.256 WORK AND THE LAST THING I WANT TO SAY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MAIDS THE POINT THAT THIS IS ONLY 1167 01:44:33.256 --> 01:44:43.273 A AND YETS JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA IS TALKING ABOUT GOING BACK. RAT TIE THE 1168 01:44:43.273 --> 01:44:47.645 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF VIRTUAL GRAVRP, THAT'S PERMANENT, THAT'S A PERLTS NANT SOLUTION AND 1169 01:44:47.645 --> 01:44:56.826 IT IS ONE THAT THIS COURT MEMBERSHIP HAVE NO OPPORTUNITY PERMIT NANTS GRAND JURY BEING 1170 01:44:56.826 --> 01:45:02.860 PARTS OF THE SOLUTION TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE MANAGEMENT. I WOULD ASK THIS COURTS TO WEIGH 1171 01:45:02.860 --> 01:45:08.025 THAT VERY, VERY STRONGLY. THANK YOU THANKSES VERY MUCH. CHIEF JUSTICE 1172 01:45:08.025 --> 01:45:11.376 RABNER: THANK YOU VERY; THANK YOU ALL COUNSEL, WE WILL TAKE LTS MATTER UPT A ADVISEMENT