juror by appropriate challenge in New Jersey

2004The fundamental concern in these cases is that: "[w]here a juror on voir dire fails to disclose potentially prejudicial material... a party may be regarded as having been denied a fair trial." [ Kozlov, supra, 79 N.J. at 239 , 398 A. 2d 882 [, 885].] The [ Kozlov ] Court explained that "[t]his is not necessarily because of any actual or provable prejudice to his case attributable to such juror, but rather because of his loss, by reason of that failure of disclosure, of the opportunity to have excused the juror by appropriate challenge, thus assuring with maximum possible certainty that he be j

2004The fundamental concern in these cases is that: "[w]here a juror on voir dire fails to disclose potentially prejudicial material... a party may be regarded as having been denied a fair trial." [ Kozlov, supra, 79 N.J. at 239 , 398 A. 2d 882 [, 885].] The [ Kozlov ] Court explained that "[t]his is not necessarily because of any actual or provable prejudice to his case attributable to such juror, but rather because of his loss, by reason of that failure of disclosure, of the opportunity to have excused the juror by appropriate challenge, thus assuring with maximum possible certainty that he be j

2017We therefore conclude that defendant was denied a fair trial not necessarily because of any actual or provable prejudice to his case attributable to [the non-disclosing] juror, but rather because of his loss, by reason of that failure of disclosure, of the opportunity to have excused the juror by appropriate challenge, thus assuring with maximum possible certainty that he be judged fairly by an impartial jury. [Kozlof, supra, 79 N.J. at 239 .] Our conclusion on this point makes it unnecessary for us to determine whether the judge's finding of no actual prejudice is supported by the record.

2017This is "not necessarily because of any actual or provable prejudice to his case attributable to such juror, but rather because of his loss, by reason of that failure of disclosure, of the opportunity to have excused the juror by appropriate challenge." Ibid.

2004The fundamental concern in these cases is that: "[w]here a juror on voir dire fails to disclose potentially prejudicial material... a party may be regarded as having been denied a fair trial." [ Kozlov, supra, 79 N.J. at 239 , 398 A. 2d 882 [, 885].] The [ Kozlov ] Court explained that "[t]his is not necessarily because of any actual or provable prejudice to his case attributable to such juror, but rather because of his loss, by reason of that failure of disclosure, of the opportunity to have excused the juror by appropriate challenge, thus assuring with maximum possible certainty that he be j

1994The United States Supreme Court has held that "to obtain a new trial[,] a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause." McDonough Power Equip. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 , 104 S.Ct. 845, 850 , 78 L.Ed. 2d 663, 671 (1984); see also United States v. Ortiz, 942 F. 2d 903, 909 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 2966 , 119 L.Ed. 2d 587 (1992).

1994The United States Supreme Court has held that "to obtain a new trial[,] a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause." McDonough Power Equip. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 , 104 S.Ct. 845, 850 , 78 L.Ed. 2d 663, 671 (1984); see also United States v. Ortiz, 942 F. 2d 903, 909 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 2966 , 119 L.Ed. 2d 587 (1992).

1994The United States Supreme Court has held that "to obtain a new trial[,] a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause." McDonough Power Equip. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 , 104 S.Ct. 845, 850 , 78 L.Ed. 2d 663, 671 (1984); see also United States v. Ortiz, 942 F. 2d 903, 909 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 2966 , 119 L.Ed. 2d 587 (1992).

1994The United States Supreme Court has held that "to obtain a new trial[,] a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause." McDonough Power Equip. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 , 104 S.Ct. 845, 850 , 78 L.Ed. 2d 663, 671 (1984); see also United States v. Ortiz, 942 F. 2d 903, 909 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 2966 , 119 L.Ed. 2d 587 (1992).

1988Our rejection was influenced by the uncertain and incomplete nature of the appeal process; it did not purport to rule on the materiality of the report as probative evidence of jury taint. [6] In addition, defendant argues that the silence of the jurors on voir dire — their failure to recollect — on their exposure to prejudicial information "deprived the defendant `of the opportunity to have excused a juror by appropriate challenge.'" (citing In re Kozlov, 79 N.J. 232, 235 (1979); State v. Thompson, 142 N.J. Super. 274, 280-82 (App.Div. 1976)).

1988In addition, defendant argues that the silence of the jurors on voir dire— their failure to recollect — on their exposure to prejudicial information "de prived the defendant of the opportunity to have excused a juror by appropriate challenge.’ ’’ (citing In re Kozlov 79 N.J. 232, 235 (1979); State v. Thompson, 142 N.J.Super. 274, 280-82 (App.Div.1976)).

1983United States v. McCorkle, 248 F. 2d 1, 6-9 (3d Cir.), cert. den. 355 U.S. 873 , 78 S.Ct. 121 , 2 L.Ed. 2d 77 (1957). *117 See also State v. Deatore, 70 N.J. 100, 105-106 (1976); State v. Thompson, supra, 142 N.J. Super. at 280-281 (applying New Jersey law); But cf. United States v. Currie, 609 F. 2d 1193, 1194 (6th Cir.1979), cert. den. 445 U.S. 928 , 100 S.Ct. 1314 , 63 L.Ed. 2d 760 (1980); Atlas Roofing Mfg.