In State v. Ebenezer Byrd (A-3/4/5-24/089469) (Decided July 24, 2025), the Supreme Court of New Jersey clarified the steps a trial judge must take in response to serious mid-trial allegations of juror misconduct. According to the Court, when allegations of juror misconduct arise during trial, the court must assess their plausibility.
Once the court is satisfied that the allegations are sufficiently plausible to require questioning, the court is obligated to conduct a specific and probing examination of the juror to determine whether misconduct occurred
Facts of State v. Ebenezer Byrd
The State charged defendants Ebenezer Byrd, Jerry J. Spraulding, and Gregory A. Jean-Baptiste in connection with a 2009 murder. During voir dire of the jury, the trial judge asked a series of open-ended questions, one of which inquired into the “type of work” the jurors did. Juror No. 8 answered that she was “an operating room nurse at a medical center.”
In February 2019, Byrd’s defense counsel’s secretary emailed the trial judge’s secretary about a call received by the Office of the Public Defender indicating that a juror “has been googling and texting [Byrd] and all of his friends.”
After calling the Office to gather more information, the judge’s secretary sent the following email to the judge’s court clerk: “[Employee S.] at the PD’s office took the call. The woman identified herself as ‘Miss Wurty(?)’ but said she doesn’t want to be involved any further. She claims she has a friend who works at Monmouth Medical Center with [A.B.] (I believe she is juror 15). She said [A.B.] has been googling the case, showing articles to and talking about it with other people, and has already decided she is going to find them all guilty and going to ‘burn their asses.’”
The judge informed counsel that he intended to call the named juror up to question her. After deducing that the allegations pertained to Juror No. 8, the judge called her to sidebar and questioned her in the presence of defense counsel. He asked where she works (Monmouth Medical Center); whether, “in terms of any posting or newspaper articles, is there anything outside of what’s been in this courtroom that you have been in contact with?” (no); and general questions about whether her responses to the questions asked during voir dire had changed, including her ability to listen to the evidence and “render a fair and impartial verdict” (no).
Defense counsel objected to the line of questioning and requested additional relief. Ultimately, the judge declined to inquire further. Defense counsel renewed their objections once the court excused the jury for the day, asking the judge to excuse Juror No. 8 for cause. The judge denied the request. The trial continued, and the jury convicted defendants on all counts.
On appeal, Byrd’s counsel moved for a limited remand to reconstruct the record regarding Juror No. 8’s alleged misconduct. The Appellate Division ordered a remand hearing. On remand, the trial judge described what prompted the inquiry into Juror No. 8, marking his notes and a series of emails between court staff as an exhibit for purposes of the remand hearing.
Following the limited remand, defendants appealed their convictions and sentences on several grounds. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the trial judge’s response to allegations of Juror No. 8’s misconduct did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
NJ Supreme Court’s Decision in State v. Ebenezer Byrd
The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed. It held that the trial judge did not take appropriate steps in response to serious mid-trial allegations of juror misconduct.
“We hold that the trial judge’s inquiry into those allegations was inadequate. When allegations of juror misconduct arise during trial, the court must assess their plausibility. Once the court is satisfied that the allegations are sufficiently plausible to require questioning, the court is obligated to conduct a specific and probing examination of the juror to determine whether misconduct occurred,” Justice Noriega wrote. “Here, the trial judge determined the allegations required an inquiry of the juror but then failed to ask questions that directly addressed the allegations.”
As the New Jersey Supreme Court explained, the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 10 of the New Jersey Constitution guarantee criminal defendants the right to trial by an impartial jury. The trial judge bears the primary responsibility for safeguarding that constitutional guarantee, which includes evaluating prejudicial occurrences as well as their impact when they arise.
Pursuant to State v. R.D., 169 N.J. 551 (2001), when the trial court becomes aware of allegations of juror misconduct, bias, or external influence, it must determine, first, whether the allegations are sufficiently plausible to warrant further inquiry. If so, then the court must assess whether any affected jurors are capable of fulfilling their duty to judge the facts in an impartial and unbiased manner, based strictly on the evidence presented in court.
In its decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court further emphasized that trial courts must pose searching questions to uncover the specific nature of the extraneous information and safeguard the jury’s impartiality. That inquiry should capture whether the juror — intentionally or inadvertently — shared any of the information with fellow jurors. Based on the juror’s responses, the court must then determine whether individual voir dire of the rest of the jury is necessary to ensure continued impartiality. Any such determination should be placed on the record to facilitate appellate review.
In this case, the New Jersey Supreme Court found that the trial court failed to meet that standard both by questioning Juror No. 8 at sidebar in the presence of the jury and by failing to conduct a sufficient inquiry into the allegation that a seated juror was exposed to or engaged in prejudicial extraneous conduct. When a trial court conducts an inquiry into potential jury misconduct by voir dire of a single juror, it must do so in open court and outside the presence of the remaining jurors, the Court instructed.
“This procedure serves two essential purposes. First, it ensures transparency and allows both parties to participate meaningfully, thereby preserving the defendant’s right to due process,” Justice Noriega wrote. Second, and equally important, it protects the integrity of the jury as a deliberative body by minimizing the risk that other jurors will be influenced — consciously or unconsciously — by either the allegations or the inquiry itself.”
The New Jersey Supreme Court also found that the trial court’s questioning fell short of the standard set forth in R.D. While the Court acknowledged that it was not prescribing a “rigid script” for trial courts, questions in this context must be “tailored to the specific allegations, clear in scope, and designed to provide jurors with an opportunity to disclose any breach of their obligation.” Justice Noriega further explained:
Here, the trial court was not required to accuse the juror of misconduct to adequately investigate the allegation. The court could have asked straightforward, neutral questions that were both non-prejudicial and responsive to the concerns raised. For example: “Have you talked about this case at work?” “Have you expressed an opinion about the case to others?” “Have you spoken to anyone at Monmouth Medical Center about it?” Such questions are tethered to the court’s own jury instructions and would have provided an opportunity for the juror to disclose information material to her impartiality.
Finally, the New Jersey Supreme Court further found that the trial court failed to determine whether Juror No. 8 improperly influenced or shared prejudicial information with her fellow jurors. “As this Court has emphasized, the question is not whether outside influence did affect the verdict, but whether it had the capacity to do so,” Justice Noriega wrote.
Based on its determinations, the New Jersey Supreme Court found the case to be one of the extraordinary circumstances in which post-trial juror questioning may be warranted. Accordingly, it remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing, including individual voir dire of the juror who allegedly engaged in misconduct, to determine whether juror taint occurred and, if so, whether further steps, including a new trial, are necessary.