Preview:

a5617-03.opn.html
Original Wordprocessor Version
This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*.
(NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5617-03T45617-03T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL PIERCE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted October 3, 2005 - Decided
Before Judges Parrillo and Gilroy.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County,
Indictment No. 00-10-00912-I/A.
Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Jacqueline E. Turner,
Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Ronald J. Casella, Cumberland County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Matthew M.
Bingham, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Michael Pierce appeals from the trial court's order of February 4, 2004, entered on remand from this
court (A-4208-01T4), for a post-trial interview of several petit jurors pursuant to R. 1:16-1 to determine whether
there was any juror misconduct in the trial leading to defendant's conviction. For reasons hereinafter expressed, we
vacate the order and remand the matter for consideration anew by another judge.
On May 2, 2001, a jury convicted the defendant of: 1) second-degree robbery, 346 N.J. Super. 418, 421, 421 n.1 (App.
Div. 2001) (quoting Pyatt v. Mayor & Council of Dunellen, 9 N.J. 548, 557 (1952)) (first alteration in original).
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a5617-03.opn.html[4/20/2013 8:04:24 PM]




a5617-03.opn.html
In Rivers, we held that a judge should have recused himself from presiding over a Family Part matter where the
judge had "previously represented one of the parties in a matter before him against the other" and failure to do so
causes "any action taken [to be] a nullity." Ibid. Although Rivers is distinguishable from this matter because the
judge's failure to recuse himself violated both a rule of court, R. 1:12-10(c), (f) and statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-49b, we
conclude that the need to apply the bright-line rule to the present matter is equally applicable. "That result is
required by the need 'to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process, which in turn depends
on a belief [by litigants and the general public alike] in the impartiality of judicial decision making.'" Rivers, supra,
346 N.J. Super. at 421 (quoting State v. Kettles, 345 N.J. Super. 466, 469-70 (App. Div. 2001)) (alteration in original).
Because we conclude that the bright-line rule of disqualification of Rivers is applicable to the present matter, we
express no opinion as to the other issues raised on appeal.
The order of February 4, 2001, is vacated, and the matter is remanded for another judge to conduct the post-trial
juror interrogations into possible juror misconduct as originally directed in our prior remand. Counsel for defendant
shall provide the judge, at least two weeks prior to the hearing, with: copies of the transcripts of proceedings from
the original trial; a copy of this court's prior decision, Docket NO. A-4208-01T4; a copy of defendant's motion for
recusal; copies of the transcripts of the telephone and in-court interrogation of the jurors conducted on May 29,
2001, and February 4, 2004, respectively; a copy of the order of February 4, 2004; and a copy of this decision.
wvWare/wvWare version 1.0.3
-->
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a5617-03.opn.html[4/20/2013 8:04:24 PM]

Download a5617-03.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law