N.J., the Police State (Constitutional illiterates on the NJ Supreme Court)

Star Ledger ^ | Thursday, July 25, 2002 | Paul Mulshine

[dead]

The seven justices of the New Jersey Supreme Court are a bunch of constitutional illiterates whose lust for power is exceeded only by their near-total disregard for the rules of logic.

Can I say that?

I'm not sure anymore. Until recently, the court restricted its bullying to politicians. Of late, however, the justices have journalists in their sights. Just last week they awarded themselves the power to fine us and even throw us in jail if we ask inconvenient questions.

[Blood of Tyrants]

New Jersey is rapidly taking on the aspect of a police state.

And the liberal media is now seeing that the beast they have helped to create is beyond their control.

[RobRoy]

I thought that unless there was some sort of gag order or restraining order, any free citizen of the US could attempt to talk to any other free citizen of the US, regardless of their occupation.

Unless there is some key information missing from the article (Kirby Wilbur is notorious for that, and Rush does it too), this stinks to high heaven.

[Alberta's Child]

In a 5-2 decision upholding the fines and suspended jail sentences, the justices gushed about the need to protect "the sanctity of the discharged jury's deliberations."

Using this logic, the laws against jury tampering are meaningless because allegations of this sort could not be investigated without violating "the sanctity of the discharged jury's deliberations."

[Focault's Pendulum]

contempt of court for violating her order that they not talk to jurors after the trial

Did the judge just make up a new law???

[Sandy]

From the decision:

Our most specific concern is that jurors submitting to media interviews might reveal some insight into the jury’s deliberative process that would afford the prosecution a significant advantage at the retrial and thereby provide defendant with a colorable Sixth Amendment issue for appeal in the event of a conviction . . . the risk that such disclosures could provide the prosecution with an undue advantage in the retrial proceeding is sufficiently substantial to persuade us that the safer course is to disallow the interviews despite the attendant limitation on the media’s First Amendment interests.

The Court is saying that the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights take precedence over the media's First Amendment rights. Sounds reasonable to me, particularly in light of the fact that this is a death-penalty case.