Presentment by Camden County Grand Jury, In re

• Decision Date: 16 June 1952
• Docket Number: No. A--106,A--106
• Citation: 10 N.J. 23,89 A.2d 416
• Parties: In re PRESENTMENT BY CAMDEN COUNTY GRAND JURY.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 23

10 N.J. 23

89 A.2d 416

In re PRESENTMENT BY CAMDEN COUNTY GRAND JURY.

No. A--106.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued March 24, 1952.

Decided June 16, 1952.

Frank G. Schlosser, Hoboken, argued the cause for movant-appellant.

Mitchell H. Cohen, Prosecutor of Camden County, Camden, argued the cause for the State.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

VANDERBILT, C.J.

The matters involved in this appeal are so vital to the sound administration of justice, and some of them are so widely misapprehended that we deem it essential to present the facts and our views of the pertinent principles of law in considerable detail.

I.

An attempted jail break by one John Caruso, an inmate of the Camden County jail and a paroled murderer, precipitated a joint inquiry by the appellant as sheriff of Camden County and the county prosecutor into conditions at the jail. The investigation disclosed such serious misconduct in the administration of the jail that the evidence gathered was submitted to the grand jury, which in turn examined 59 witnesses, including the appellant, at 12 special sessions and took 1,500 pages of testimony. On October 11, 1951, as a result of the grand jury investigation indictments for misconduct in office were returned against the undersheriff and three jail guards, and indictments for conspiracy and false swearing were found against the undersheriff, two jail guards and one Joseph Martino, alias Eddie O'Keefe, who, although not a public official or employee, seems to have had the run of the jail almost continuously day and night, even eating and sleeping there.

At the same time the grand jury also presented to the assignment judge of Camden County a lengthy 'report' on its investigation of the irregularities at the jail. The document stated that the jury was Unanimously convinced that laxity in the Camden County jail had reached deplorable proportions and that indifference to responsibility 'from personnel to the top elective office' helped directly in the existence of a 'pay-or-else' system, 'which was a public safety hazard, a destroyer of the morale of the majority of the prisoners and a mockery of restrictions which should be placed on those who violate our laws.' The grand jury enumerated the 'irregularities' that existed in the county jail under the following heads:

"Favored' Prisoners Taken Out--Under the 'pay-or-else' system, favored prisoners were taken out of jail and escorted to local restaurants or nearby taprooms. Here they were permitted their choice of foods or liquors. On one occasion, one of these men was returned so drunk that another inmate undressed him and put him in the sick bay. At another time, a prisoner was left unattended for an hour in the Gloucester taproom; still another was taken to a visit to his home with no obvious reason for doing so.

'Flagrant Disregard to Scheduled Visiting Hours--By admission of jail personnel (night shift) little, if any, attention was paid to the ruling on visiting hours--which are 1:00 P.M. to 3:00 P.M. on Wednesday afternoons. Laxity of directive officers and indifference of most personnel permitted the 'favored' to come and go at will. Visitors often remained until early hours of the morning.

'Contact Visits--Because of the same marked shifting of responsibility and indifference, female visitors were permitted contact visits with prisoners with impromptu quarters (including couch) in the guards' dining room. Couples were permitted to be alone for indefinite periods.

'Unofficial 'Assistant' Undersheriff--The constant presence of Joseph Martino--almost daily and nightly with no reason yet provided for being there--has been definitely established by this Grand Jury. This irregularity has been branded in the Department of Institutions and Agencies' report as 'one of the more flagrant abuses and violations of good jail practice.' Martino, as field representative for the 'system,' carried keys, ran errands, performed menial tasks as well as directive duties and with obvious permission of the Undersheriff, set himself up as an overseer, and slept and ate in the jail.

'Steak and Lobster--Food to order including steaks, chicken, spaghetti, lobster, submarine sandwiches and imported him were among those delicacies brought to prisoners who had the price to pay several times their actual worth. On other occasions special foods were brought by visitors for prisoners and these were prepared in the prison kitchen, to be enjoyed as late-hour 'snacks' for the privileged.

'Liberal Spending By Prisoners--The sum of $250.00 deposited for one prisoner was all withdrawn by him in less than six weeks' time with as much as $50.00 in a single day received by him. Other prisoners who had accounts were permitted the same privilege. This spending by those who had it was directly responsible for the 'pay- or-else' system, the money games, professional card cutters and almost all special favors.

'Medical Program--The medical program was lax--and dangerous while a physician is available for prisoners who are ill, he does not visit the jail with sufficient regularity, unless summoned. As a result, prisoners were admitted to the sick bay at the discretion of prison personnel and attended by an inmate-orderly who had permission to take temperatures and dispense medicines and bromides in accordance with the doctor's prescriptions. There was no way to see that correct dispensing was followed out and this permitted the handling of bromides, etc., by irresponsible persons.

'Visitors' Book Ignored--The system included no time nor interest in the Visitors' Book. Insistence that this proper practice be followed, with signature of every visitor, along with date and time of visit would have interfered with the 'system.'

'Abuse of Privilege--The special privilege irregularities as they existed in Camden County Jail, call for strong censure from this jury. It was vicious and shocking. Penal institutions are reserved for all those found guilty of punishable forms of law violation. Restrictive privilege should be applicable to all as a part of the punishment meted out by the decisions of the juries and courts of our land. The existence of the 'pay-or-else' system made this a mockery. Prisoners convicted of minor crimes, if they had no money, were compelled to watch more hardened criminals--one a paroled murderer--enjoy relative freedom and comforts because they could afford to pay for these.'

Having listed the irregularities, of which the grand jury said it possessed 'overwhelming proof,' it then proceeded to 'determine who was responsible' therefor:

'The Sheriff's disinterest and lack of knowledge of his job, based upon his own admitted testimony before this Grand Jury, rates the strongest kind of moral indictment. Moral only because the laws of the State fail to define clearly his chargeable responsibilities and fix legal penalties upon failure of such elected officials who fail to complete these properly.

'The Sheriff, appearing twice before this Grand Jury, admitted that if the irregularities existed in his department they were poor practices--that he had been up in the jail at nights 'maybe two, three, four or five times' * * * that he had seen Martino but didn't know who he was (Undersheriff Lombardo and Martino testified that he did know) * * * that he had no idea that such deplorable conditions existed * * * that he had left the jail to his subordinates.

'While the Sheriff's testimony convinced the Jury of his general lack of knowledge of what was going on, the Martino angle as far as the Sheriff was concerned is a clear-cut example of the extent of his lack of interest. If he did not know that Martino was a constant visitor even casual attention to his job would have revealed this.

'This Jury remains convinced that the Sheriff was a poor witness whose testimony was evasive and lacking in cooperation which an investigating Grand Jury should expect from a public servant who was properly discharging his duties. It is further the final opinion of the Grand Jury that until the commencement of this investigation at least, he had failed miserably in his public trust.

'Undersheriff Lombardo, who was appointed by the Sheriff to be in charge of the jail, appeared before this Jury three times; twice at his own request to change damaging testimony which he had made under oath previously. He, in turn, admitted leaving much of the responsibility to his subordinates and Martino, and he admitted some of the irregularities. His resignation, between appearances before the Grand Jury, is significant.

'Martino's testimony denying any wrong-doing in the 'pay-or-else' system was broken down by the testimony of too money witnesses to be acceptable to the jurors who rate him, with the Undersheriff, as prime instigators.

'The Warden who stated that he rarely visited the jail after his hours--from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M.--said that he was in charge but that when the Undersheriff was on the scene, he became the person in authority.

'Jail personnel were apathetic and acceptant of the condition, but a penchant for petty chiseling by several of them, at the expense of prisoners, made them willing partners in the 'system.'

'How much more money than that which could be placed by evidence exchanged hands or who pocketed it, this Jury cannot state, and it is not within its premise to speculate. Enough to say, that the system which thrived at Camden County Jail, through laxity at the top, and in the middle, caused acceptance at the lower levels, and must have yielded a relatively sizeable return for those involved.'

The grand jury's report made a series of specific recommendations for the future conduct of the jail in the following terms:

'That Legislation be enacted giving the State Department of Institutions and Agencies more powers to prescribe basic rules and regulations to be strictly adhered to in the administration of our County Jails. This Legislation should also provide fines or...