State v. Marshall

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Martini

    160 N.J. 248 (N.J. 1999)   Cited 157 times
    Holding where circumstances prohibit sentencing trial before fully informed jury, State must desist from capital prosecution

    Nevertheless, the public's right to access to criminal trials will give way "in certain cases to other rights or interests, such as the defendant's right to a fair trial or the government's interest in inhibiting disclosure of sensitive information." Waller, supra, 467 U.S. at 45, 104 S.Ct. at 2215, 81 L.Ed. 2d at 38; see State v. Williams, 93 N.J. 39, 63, 70 (1983); see also State v. Marshall, 199 N.J. Super. 502 (App.Div. 198 5). The presence of these First Amendment rights only reinforces my conclusion that capital sentencing trials are distinct from other capital proceedings and that, given the rights at stake, the presentation of mitigating evidence in such proceedings may never be in camera.

  2. State v. Marshall

    123 N.J. 1 (N.J. 1991)   Cited 507 times
    Holding that defense counsel does not have prerogative to decide whether to death-qualify a jury in capital cases because risk of unfair conviction of death poses too grave a constitutional offense

    The Appellate Division affirmed that order. State v. Marshall, 199 N.J.Super. 502, 489 A.2d 1235 (1985). The court then changed the venue to Atlantic County.

  3. State v. Halsey

    218 N.J. Super. 149 (Law Div. 1987)   Cited 3 times

    At the hearing on the closure application the court closed a portion of such hearing to permit the court to identify the critical issues so as to ensure that potentially prejudicial material is not prematurely revealed that would adversely impact on defendant's rights under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Art. I, par. 10 of the New Jersey Constitution. State v. Williams, supra at 73; State v. Marshall, 199 N.J. Super. 502 (App.Div. 1985). During this in camera proceeding counsel for the press was permitted to remain subject to their viva voce representation that defendant's proffer by way of identification of critical issues would remain confidential and not be revealed to the assembled reporters.