State v. Zhu

• Decision Date: 23 October 2000
• Citation: 165 N.J. 544,761 A.2d 523
• Parties: STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jeffrey ZHU, Defendant-Appellant. State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Xin Dan Lin, Defendant-Appellant. State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Yun Lin, Defendant-Appellant. State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Chao Lin Feng, Defendant-Appellant. State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Cho Lee Lin, Defendant-Appellant. State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Simon Lau, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

761 A.2d 523

165 N.J. 544

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jeffrey ZHU, Defendant-Appellant.

State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Xin Dan Lin, Defendant-Appellant.

State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Yun Lin, Defendant-Appellant.

State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Chao Lin Feng, Defendant-Appellant.

State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Cho Lee Lin, Defendant-Appellant.

State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Simon Lau, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued September 12, 2000.

Decided October 23, 2000.

Stephen W. Kirsch, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, Counsel for appellant Xin Dan Lin and George W. Eckhardt, Designated Counsel, for appellant Jeffrey Zhu argued the cause for appellants (Ivelisse Torres, Public Defender, attorney; Mr. Kirsch, Mr. Eckhardt and Brian P. O'Reilly, Designated Counsel, for Xin Dan Lin, on the briefs).

John J. Scaliti, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (William H. Schmidt, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney).

Michael C. Kazer, Designated Counsel, submitted briefs on behalf of appellant Yun Lin (Ivelisse Torres, Public Defender, attorney).

James F. Anderson, Designated Counsel, submitted letter briefs on behalf of appellant Chao Lin Feng (Ivelisse Torres, Public Defender, attorney).

Charles B. Andre, Designated Counsel, submitted briefs on behalf of appellant Cho Lee Lin (Ivelisse Torres, Public Defender, attorney).

Mark E. Tabakman, Designated Counsel, submitted a letter brief on behalf of appellant Simon Lau (Ivelisse Torres, Public Defender, attorney).

Jeffrey Zhu submitted a supplemental brief pro se.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by VERNIERO, J.

Defendants were tried and convicted on murder and other charges stemming from a gang-related multiple homicide in Teaneck, New Jersey. At the trial that spanned several months, the County Sheriff implemented a plan of heightened security consisting of an increased presence of uniformed officers in the courtroom as well as other measures. We must determine whether the elevated security deprived defendants of their right to a fair trial by creating an unacceptable atmosphere suggestive of guilt. The Appellate Division concluded that defendants were not denied a fair trial. We agree and, therefore, affirm.

I.

Defendants are members of a Chinese gang known as Fuk Ching. The gang's activities included extortion, arson, and loan sharking. At the time of the murders the gang derived profits from smuggling illegal Chinese aliens into the United States. The immigrants purportedly paid between $20,000 and $30,000 for transportation and were required to pay back approximately $1,000 a month to the gang. Many, if not most, of the immigrants took low-paying jobs and were forced to live as cheaply as possible, often in gang-run "safe houses." If the immigrants did not repay the debt, they were held captive and sometimes beaten. Some aliens became involved in the gang's criminal activities.

In furtherance of the gang's operations, a ship carrying hundreds of illegal Chinese immigrants was due to arrive off the coast of Massachusetts in 1993. Rival members within the Fuk Ching gang decided that they would kill the gang's leader and other high-ranking members and thereby take control of those expected immigrants. On May 24, 1993, the rivals attempted to carry out their plan by attacking a safe house in Teaneck, New Jersey. There were four gang members and one smuggled alien living in the house, and defendants shot or stabbed all of the occupants (one occupant was actually shot outdoors as he attempted to escape harm). Four of the victims of the attack died; one victim, the alien, survived.

Having received descriptions of the getaway van seen by witnesses, the police arrested all defendants (except defendant Lau) a short time after the shooting at a roadblock near the George Washington Bridge. The police retrieved numerous weapons from defendants and the safe house, including guns, knives, handcuffs, a container of gasoline, and ammunition. The police also found blood-stained clothing in the van. Defendant Lau, who had fled the murder scene in a separate vehicle, was arrested sometime later in Florida and extradited to New Jersey. Defendants were indicted on numerous counts of murder, attempted murder, felony murder, kidnapping, burglary, attempted arson, and various weapons offenses.

Against the background of the indictment and the gang's alleged internecine rivalries, the Bergen County Sheriff's Office proposed certain high-security procedures to be implemented at trial. Frank Benedetto, a captain with that office, outlined the procedures in a May 8, 1995, memorandum to the Sheriff. The memorandum states in full:

The Bergen County Sheriff's Department's standard operating procedure for high security trials will be implemented in reference to the State of New Jersey vs. [Jeffrey Zhu, et al.] trial.

A supervising officer will be assigned to oversee the security detail. An appropriate amount of officers will be assigned to address all participants, the judge, the jury, defendants, defense attorneys, the prosecutor and the general public.

Please be advised that five defendants are presently incarcerated in the Bergen County Jail and one is incarcerated in the Hudson County Jail.

The said defendants will be transported on a daily basis by members of the Transportation Unit. Once inside the Justice Complex they will be escorted from holding areas through the corridors utilizing handcuffs and leg irons. All corridors will be cleared prior to the movement and all jurors will be secured in the jury room prior to any movement. Special precautions will be taken to assure that no juror will see the said defendants in escort. Once inside the courtroom, handcuffs and leg irons will be removed.

The courtroom in question will be searched on a daily basis prior to its opening, [and] it will be closed and locked during lunch. All participants, including the general public will have to pass through mangetometer-type [sic] searches. All packages and briefcases will have to be opened for examination.

No police officer and or members of the Prosecutor's office will be permitted to carry firearms into the courtroom in question. The Sheriff's officers assigned to the handling of the defendants will also be unarmed.

Also be advised that all Sheriff's personnel will be briefed on a daily basis prior to their assignments by the supervising officer as to their responsibilities and duties. At the close of each day, the supervising officer will conduct an additional meeting critiquing that days [sic] activities.

On May 22, 1995, the trial court conducted a hearing during which defense counsel questioned Captain Benedetto regarding the proposed plan. As reflected in the transcript of that proceeding, Captain Benedetto explained that in addition to passing through metal detectors located at the main entrances to the courthouse, all individuals entering the courtroom would be cleared each day by security personnel employing magnetometers (handheld metal detectors that resemble wands). Specifically, a Sheriff's officer would wave the magnetometer close to the individual before that individual entered the courtroom. Captain Benedetto estimated that the procedure would take only a few seconds. Additionally, Sheriff's officers positioned outside the courtroom would visually inspect any handbags, packages, or briefcases belonging to any person seeking entry. Security personnel employing those procedures would clear all persons entering the courtroom, including jurors, counsel, judicial staff, spectators, and the judge himself.

Captain Benedetto explained that the heightened security plan was necessary because: first, the Sheriff's Office believed that an organized criminal group had threatened the lives of one or more defendants; second, there was a possibility that a family member of the judge, his staff, or the jurors might be held hostage and a family member of that hostage would be compelled to smuggle a weapon into the courtroom in exchange for the hostage's safety; and third, it might be possible for someone to bypass the security checkpoints at the two main entrances because of the large number of other entrances to the courthouse.

Captain Benedetto also described briefly his training and experience as a graduate of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glenco, Georgia, where members of the United States Secret Service and United States Marshals conduct courses on courthouse security. The captain stated that "that's what they teach you for high-risk trials, that all participants, including the judge, should be searched." He also noted that in drawing up the plan he consulted with one of his superiors, an undersheriff, in addition to a lieutenant and one of the sergeants in the Sheriff's Office. The captain then presented the plan to the Sheriff in the May 8, 1995, memorandum noted above. The Sheriff in turn instructed the captain to present the plan to the court.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court announced its intention to enter an order essentially codifying the proposed procedures. The court recited its own experience in dealing with security issues, stating: "I had at least a civil case involving someone in the Witness Protection Program, basically what's outlined here, I was informed by the Federal Marshals, we then moved to [another] courtroom, and all people coming in and out went through the magnetometer search, went up to the courtroom, the jurors went through it every day, they did a search of the courtroom, chambers, everything else before the trial started. I don't consider it unusual, in certain situations it exists."

On May 30, 1995, the trial court entered an order formally adopting the security plan:

It is ... ordered that the Bergen County Sheriff's Department's standard operating procedure for high security

...