Legal Opinion

State v. W.A.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided June 21, 2005PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Long

Every criminal defendant has the right of presence at his own trial, including jury selection. The specific question before us is whether that right incorporates an entitlement to attend sidebar conferences held during jury selection. The answer is that, under Rule 3:16, a defendant, who requests it, ordinarily has a right of presence at voir dire sidebar conferences. However, that right is not absolute, and where security issues are implicated, a court may utilize other methods to secure a defendant’s meaningful participation in voir dire, including technology, the modified struck-jury…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Duncan v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  4. Swain v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  5. Illinois v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. State v. A.R.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2013
  2. State v. IngramSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2008
  3. State v. ReeveyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2010
  4. State v. ByrdSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2009
  5. Commonwealth v. HunsbergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API