State of Delaware v. Jonathan Manelski

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

STATE OF DELAWARE,

JONATHAN MANELSKI,

Defendant.

David I~-Iolloway, Esquire
Deputy Attorney General
Delaware Department of justice
820 N. French Street, 7“‘ Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Alforneyfor the Siale

\_/\¢_/\_/'\_/\_¢-/‘-_J‘-J\J\é

Case No. 1212014503

Joseph Hurley, Esquire

1215 King Street

Wilmington, DE 1980]
Altc)rneyjr`)r fha Defendcznl

Submitted: February 10, 2014
Decided: March 7, 2014

MEMORANDUM ()PINI{)N AND ()RDER

On july 30, 2013, Defendant Jonathan Manelski (hereinaftez' "Det`endant") was convicted at
a jury trial of Driving Under the influence of Alcohol and other Title 21 violations Prior to jury
selection, Defeiidant’s counsel made an oral motion to compel the production of juror profiles
recovered from the Deiaware Criminal Justice information Systeln (hereinafter "DELJIS") by the

State. Tiie State refused pursuant to ll Del. C. § 8513, and the Court denied the Motion, but

allowed for both parties to submit supplemental briefing following the conclusion of the trial.

”l`he Defendant as_serts that the portion of ll Del-. C. § 85 lB(g) that prevents the Defeiidant -

and l)efeiidant’s counsel from accessing the criminal history record information of potential jurors
is unconstitutional, as it violates due process of law and equal protection.l The Defendant asserts
that he would have to engage in substantially greater degrees of research, involving all counties, to
uncover the information that is accessible to the State at the click of a mouse. The Defendant
alleges that the jury questionnaire does not provide the same information that DELJIS records
provide The Defendant seeks to allow defense counsel, not the Defendant, to view the records at
the State’s table to prevent what Defendant summarizes as the State’s concern about releasing
information about jurors "to discourage retribution in the event of an unl<ind verdict or manipulation
before trial," which Defendant notes "is a beneficial and reasonable concern."z

Conversely, the State argues that ll Del. C. § 85l3(g) is constitutionally valid, as preventing
the defense from viewing the records "for fear of retaliation or manipulation is a rational basis
related to a legitimate governmental function."3 The State argues that the Delaware legislature
made it explicit that it intended to limit the defense’s access to DELJIS via § 8513, and that
following the enactment of the statute, the Delaware Superior Court and Delaware Supreme Court
both affirmed opinions preventing the disclosure of juror information. Additionally, the State
quotes Charbonrieau v. Sliate, in which the Delaware Suprerne Court denied a due process claim
related to the possession of juror profiles, stating "[the defendant] has articulated no prejudice
resulting from the State’s exclusive possession of the information."l The State notes that the
defense has the opportunity to inquire about criminal history through the voir dire process, and

states that, under the recent decision in Si‘aie v. Salasky, "[if] the information provided by the juror

' Counsel noted that he had not researched the relationship between equal protection and the production of DELJIS
records to determine whether it would apply to the State.

2 D. Mot. Arnend. Pp. 4-5.

3 State’s Brief in Opposition p. l.

4 ld. at 3, quoting Char'bonnearr v. State, 904 A.Zd 295, 319 (Del, 2006).

2

is inconsistent with the information contained on the DELJIS criminal history, the State will be_

required to disclose that information to the Court and defense counsel."§

LEGAL STANDARI)
'l`l"ie trial judge has discretion to declare a niistrial, as he or she is in the "best position to
assess the risk of any prejudice resulting from trial events."(’ "A trial judge should grant a mistrial
only when there is ‘manifest necessity’ or the ‘ends of public justice would be otherwise

defeated."’? I\/iistrials will be granted "only when there are ‘no meaningful and practical

alternatives to that remedy."s

I)ISCUSSI()N

Pursuant to 1 l Del. C. § 85l3(g), ‘“the dissemination to the defendant or defense attorney in
a criminal case of criminal history record information pertaining to any juror in such case is
prohibited." ln M€Bri`de v. Staz'e, the Delaware Supreine Court held that a defendant’s due process
rights are not violated by the State maintaining exclusive possession of jurors’ criminal records.9 ln
juror selection processes, the jurors may complete juror questionnaires, and may be subject to voir
dire questions 'l`he Court has found that through these processes, the defense may gain access to
the same information contained in the DELJIS reports held by the State, and therefore the
defendant’s due process rights are not violated by the State’s retention of DELJIS reports m

ln Stare v. Salosky, the Superior Court explicitly held that a defendant cannot request

"disclosure of the full criminal histories of all potential jurors,"'l and such denial does not constitute

5 2013 wi, 5437363, et *32 (Dei. super sept 26, 2013).
6 never v, s¢ere, 956 A_ze 23, 27 (Dei. 2003) (eitetiepe eminent

7 ld. (quoting Brown v. State, 897 A.Zd at 752 (quoting Fannz`ng v. Superior Court, 320 A.2d 343, 345 (Del.l974))).
3 Dawtron v. Stare, 637 A.2d 57, 62 (Del.1994) (quoting Bai`ley v. State, 521 A.2d at 1077).

"477 A.zd. 174, 190 (oel_ 1934).

m ld. at 189; Charbonneazz, 904 A.2d at 319.

" 2013 wL 5437363, et *32 (r)el. super sept 26, 2013),

3

a due process or an equal protection violation.lf Tliis determination was made by the Court after_

the defense requested the DELJIS files for jurors during the jury selection process in order to have
equal footing with the State. The Court in Salask_y discussed ll Def. C. § 8513 and the McBride
decision, and determined that while there exists no due process violation in failing to provide the
defense with access to DELJIS reports, the Court should engage in other procedures to "ensure a
fair trial and balance the due process concerns expressed in the McBrz`a'-e decision."w

The Court in Safasky made clear, however, that a defendant’s due process rights would be
violated if the State fails to disclose information "relating to a juror’s ability to render an impartial
verdict."l“l Such a situation would occur if a juror failed to reveal, on a questionnaire or during voir
dire questioning, information that is contained on the individual’s DELJIS history. The Court
wanted to make certain that in such situations, the parties would have the opportunity to conduct an
inquiry into the impartiality of the juror.l§

'l`his court must follow the binding precedent set forth in the Superior Court’s Salasl<y
decision. Here, the defense requested the DELJIS files prior to the jury selection after counsel for
the Defendant noticed the files on the State’s deslt. "l`he defense did not raise any issue related to
the ability to form an impartial jury, but focused instead on the fairness of giving one party access

over another. As the Court in Salasl<y noted, “li}t is a routine and common practice in all criminal

cases for the State to run the criminal histories of each potential juror utilizing [DELJIS],"'§ and

"’ 1a

13 ld. The Court outlined the following procedure: "(l) Each juror will be provided a questionnaire to complete prior to
the voir dire. One of the questions that they will be asked is whether they have ever been arrested or convicted of a
criminal offense other than a traffic violation (2) if the juror answers yes to this question, they will be asked to list the
iiature of the arrest and/or conviction and the year(s) that such occurred. (3) lf the information provided by thejuroi' is
inconsistent with the information contained on the DELJIS criminal liistory, the State will be required to disclose that
information to the Court and defense counsei, so a proper inquiry can be conducted to ensure the juror can be impartial
and is not intentionally concealing information relevant to their qualifications to serve as a juror."

"‘ 1a (eireriene emiaeen; see Fze:eher v. sra:e, 352 A.zd 908 er *2 'rABLe (Der. 2004).

‘5 2013 wr, 543“/363, er *32.

re ]d_

there is no due process violation "when the Court refuses to force the State to disclose its ‘jury

cards’ that include a prospective juror’s criminal history.""

ln its brief, the defense relies on its constitutional arguments as grounds for the mistrial,
which hasbeen rejected as a valid argument in the absence of a relation to the construction of an
impartial jury. The defense also requested an opinion from "a Court of higher, not necessarily
better, status." Defendaiit’s request has thus been fulfilled by the Superior Court’s Salaslcy decision,

and therefore the defense’s arguments do not warrant the declaration of a mistrial under the

circumstances presented here.

CONCLUSION

The Defendant did not show that the nondisclosure of the DELJIS information prevented
him from an impartial jury. The Defendants due process rights have not been violatcd, nor has the
Defendant shown good cause outside the precedent set forth in Salaslcy for the Court to grant a
mistrial. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s l\/fotion for Declaration of a
l\/listrial.

tr ls so onl)nnizi) this 'r“‘ day or Mar¢h, 2014.

hevHonor ble Car C. Danber ,
judge

cc: Fayetta Holmes, judicial Case l\/lanager

"~’ 1a rating M<:B»~ra@ »»_ szaa», 477 A.za m (r)@l. :934)_
5