The New Jersey Supreme Court rejected the proposal to release hundreds of people from prison awaiting trial, but said some should have their detention reconsidered because of the coronavirus crisis.
The pandemic kept new trials at a standstill, and all seven judges agreed on Thursday that lower courts should consider the freedom of some people who have already waited six months behind bars and have not been charged with the most serious crimes, especially if health problems put them at greater risk.
“COVID-19 created a continuing health crisis of enormous proportions for the whole of society – including individuals detained in prison,” wrote court president Stuart Rabner in the court’s opinion, and asked lower courts to act quickly to reconsider cases. .
Residents are only arrested before trial when a judge believes they pose a risk to the public or can escape, and nearly 5,000 people were in jail waiting for the jury to start again on Monday, according to the court.
Defense lawyers argued for more radical changes last month.
Anyone imprisoned for at least six months, which is usually the term for commencing a trial, should be released if they have only been charged with committing a second degree offense or less, the public defender’s office and the American Civil Liberties Union from New Jersey said.
That would include about 650 people potentially charged with arson, assault and theft, among other crimes, lawyers estimated last year.
The judges disagreed, saying that “not all high school or criminal offenses are the same”.
But even if a judge was right to arrest someone originally, the coronavirus was a good enough reason to reconsider, Rabner said. This is especially true if the time someone spends behind bars is as long as the sentence they will receive if convicted, he said.
“We are pleased that the court has recognized a desperate need to deal with the crisis,” Alexander Shalom, a lawyer for the state section of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. “With this decision, the court will ensure that people have some way of contesting their prolonged confinement in an unprecedented environment.”
Jennifer Sellitti, a spokeswoman for the public defender, said the decision will help “ensure that no one remains behind bars during a period when the jury’s trials are suspended.”
A spokesman for the state attorney general’s office, who opposed any mass release, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
When judges consider a person’s health, a “widespread fear of contracting COVID-19” is not a good enough reason for release, Rabner wrote. Instead, courts should examine “whether the defendant’s health has deteriorated since the detention hearing and is now more susceptible to serious health consequences in prison”.
Those accused of murder or facing the possibility of life imprisonment probably should not have a new hearing, Rabner added.
Of those awaiting trial behind bars, more than 1,840 were charged with the most serious crimes, 1,780 were charged with second-degree crimes, about 1,000 face third-degree charges and less than 300 were charged with the most serious crimes. serious, according to court records.
That includes 28 people facing crimes against disorderly people, which usually result in sentences of just six months, the court said.
Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.
Blake Nelson can be reached at [email protected].
Do you have a tip? Tell us in nj.com/tips.