- State of the Judiciary Address, Speech Date Fri, 05/17/2024 - 12:00 Body Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Bill, for welcoming Chief Judge Bumb and me to participate once again at this year’s convention. We very much look forward to working with you and the Bar on various important issues this coming year. Thank you also to Tim McGoughran. You promised one year ago that you would advocate for lawyers throughout the state. And you’ve done just that with a strong voice and a good heart. The Judiciary could not have asked for a better partner and friend, and we applaud your many accomplishments during your tenure as Bar president. There are a number of things I planned to speak about this morning, beginning with the work of the Supreme Court Committee on Wellness in the Law. Jeralyn Lawrence helped inspire the initiative; Tim McGoughran strongly supported it this past year; and Associate Justice Lee Solomon spearheaded its vital work: to focus on the well-being of friends and colleagues in the legal profession. To listen, develop resources, facilitate access to them, and connect professionals in the law with mental health and well-being services, among other steps. I could easily spend a good deal of time talking about Justice Solomon, a gifted colleague who will soon reach the age of mandatory retirement. Justice, we appreciate all that you have done throughout your remarkable career in public service. The Judiciary’s JOBS Program continues to grow and is worthy of attention. It connects probationers and Recovery Court participants with meaningful employment opportunities. In doing so, it offers a chance at a new start in life. And the continued evolution and impact of Artificial Intelligence simply cannot be ignored. Judge Glenn Grant chairs a broad-based committee on AI along with retired Judge Katherine Forrest as the co-Chair. To date, the committee has issued a Statement of Principles and Guidelines for Use of AI by NJ Lawyers, and much work lies ahead on this subject. But another topic demands our attention today -- one that is rooted in the Constitutional Convention of 1947. From June to September that year, a group of 82 distinguished delegates gathered to discuss, debate, and craft a new Constitution for New Jersey, only the third in our State’s history. The delegates included members of the Legislature, the legal and business communities, the press and the League of Women Voters, as well as judges, educators, and others. Together, they charted a course for the future of our state. The delegates heard from more than 70 witnesses over the course of 22 sessions -- giants like William J. Brennan, Jr., who would go on to become a member of the United States Supreme Court, Harvard Law School Dean Roscoe Pound, Judge Learned Hand of the Second Circuit, and others. One of the primary reasons for the Constitutional Convention was the weak state of New Jersey’s judicial system. Under the 1844 Constitution, the court system was comprised of 17 different courts with overlapping jurisdiction. As a result, it could take litigants years just to end up in the right court, let alone get a ruling on the merits. Delays were legendary, and New Jersey earned the reputation of having one of the worst legal systems in the nation. The Constitutional Convention of 1947 grappled with how best to reform and restructure the Judiciary. And it succeeded. 17 different courts were streamlined into 5, with clear responsibilities and a straightforward appellate process. A unified, strong, independent judicial system replaced its predecessor. Thanks to the foresight and wisdom of the convention delegates, and a commitment to judicial excellence fostered by all three branches of government since then, the New Jersey Judiciary today is recognized as one of the top court systems in the nation. A key ingredient of its success is the state’s Appellate Division. In a word, it is a gem. It is widely regarded as one of the finest -- if not the finest -- intermediate appellate courts in the nation. It is also a workhorse in our system of justice. Litigants have a right to appeal rulings from the trial court, and thousands do so every year. As a result, approximately 30 gifted judges on the Appellate Division handle all case types -- civil, criminal, family, and equity. Together, they issue 4,000 to 6,000 opinions and rule on thousands more motions every court year. The crush of work is demanding, and the intense focus on writing is not for everyone. Fortunately, many talented judges aspire to serve on the Appellate Division after they have had a chance to gain experience in one or more trial divisions. And those who serve on our appellate court are the best of the best. The Judiciary carefully evaluates which judges will be assigned to the Appellate Division -- judges who, of course, have already been vetted by the Governor and the Senate at least once, and in most cases, twice. I regularly speak with Assignment Judges and the Chief Judge and Presiding Judges of the Appellate Division about potential new members. Assignment Judges, of course, work closely with our trial judges and know their work well. Supervisory judges of the Appellate Division, as well as members of the Supreme Court, likewise read countless decisions by trial court judges on a daily basis and are very familiar with them. Together, our leaders have a strong sense not only of who has a keen interest in writing but also who wishes to serve on the Appellate Division. Based on those observations that extend over a period of years, I temporarily assign judges to work on the Appellate Division each spring for a ten-week period -- a try-out of sorts for all involved. Each temporarily assigned trial judge is placed on a panel with appellate judges. They hear cases together, conference the outcome together, and then draft opinions -- the same process that takes place year-round for appellate judges. Afterward, nearly all the trial judges are assigned to the Appellate Division on a full-time basis in the fall. On rare occasions, some express an interest to remain in the trial court. Others occasionally ask to return to the trial court at a later point. The Constitution provides the Chief Justice the flexibility to accommodate both situations and ensure a good fit over the long run. The results speak for themselves. The ranks of the Appellate Division are comprised of talented judges, with broad experience in various areas, who are interested in writing and serving on that court. And the public benefits from their exemplary service. Under the current system, there are no vacancies on the appellate court, and the Chief Justice has the constitutional authority to adjust the size of the Appellate Division as needed. As a result, each court term starts with a full complement of needed appellate court judges, factoring in retirements expected in the months ahead. The Appellate Division and the selection process both work well. There does not appear to be a problem that needs fixing, let alone a problem so serious that it requires us to ask the citizens of New Jersey to amend the State Constitution. If the proposal now under discussion in the Legislature becomes a reality, though, what can we expect? Vacancies on the appellate bench, for one thing. On the trial court level, for the decade from 2014 to 2023, judicial vacancies ranged from about 10 to 15 percent for 8 out of 10 years. We should realistically expect the same results if we adopt the same political appointment process for the Appellate Division. Yet with 10 to 15 percent vacancies on the appellate court handling the same heavy volume of cases, it will take longer for litigants to get rulings and resolve their disputes. It will take longer for justice to be done. And real people will suffer the consequences. With direct appointments to the Appellate Division, we will also lose the benefit of experience that trial judges now bring to the Appellate Division from their time in the civil, criminal, family, and equity parts. Of the 27 judges now assigned to the Appellate Division, 20 served in 2 divisions of the trial court, and 6 served in 3 divisions. Broken down by division, 23 previously served in Family; 17 in Civil; 11 in Criminal; and 7 in General Equity. That experience is invaluable to reach informed decisions in thousands of those very cases each year. In addition, we will lose the flexibility that allows judges to move between the trial and appellate courts when appropriate. Unfortunately, those outcomes will not enhance our system of justice; they will diminish it. The Appellate Division today is also well-balanced with nearly an even number of Democrats and Republicans, and women and men. Our State has a laudable tradition of maintaining partisan balance in appointments to the trial court and the Supreme Court. I strive to maintain that balance at the appellate court level as well. At the beginning of the upcoming court term this September, I anticipate there will be a total of 29 appellate judges – 14 Democrats; 14 Republicans; and 1 Independent; along with 15 men and 14 women. With 8 diverse judges today, we have the most diverse group of appellate court judges in the court’s history. Will we attract “better” candidates with direct appointment to the appellate court -- candidates who would prefer not to sit in Family before joining the appellate ranks? Starting with the latter point, more than one in ten cases that appellate judges decide are appeals from the Family Part. And those cases involve weighty questions. Should a temporary or permanent restraining order be entered in a domestic violence case? Has a child been abused or neglected? Who should get custody of a young child? Should a person’s parental rights be terminated? Experience in the trial court helps guide those life-altering determinations -- experience that most lawyers in private practice do not have. Appellate judges also review challenging questions in other areas -- like whether defendants should be detained pending trial, because they pose a risk to public safety, or released on pretrial monitoring. Experience in the criminal part benefits those decisions as well. Will the proposed change attract “better” candidates overall? Consider just these few legendary names, listed alphabetically: David Baime, Milton Conford, Mary Catherine Cuff, William Dreier, Howard Kestin, Michael Patrick King, Virginia Long, Sylvia Pressler, Stephen Skillman, and Edwin Stern. Any court would be hard-pressed to find more gifted judges than those exceptional individuals as well as many others we could add to the list. All of them dispensed justice on the Appellate Division with excellence and scholarship. What about Justices of the Supreme Court -- who are appointed by the Governor, confirmed by the Senate, and include individuals who have not sat in the trial divisions? Unlike the Appellate Division, the Supreme Court has a discretionary docket. It selects matters that involve substantial legal questions and hears far fewer cases than the thousands handled each term in the Appellate Division. The Supreme Court also exercises rulemaking authority and regulates the practice of law. Its members often bring valuable experience from other walks of life, such as prior service in other branches of government, in cabinet-level positions, in private practice, as well as service in the trial and appellate courts. Historically, many individuals have been appointed to the Supreme Court from the trial and appellate level. When I joined the Court, three members had previously served as trial and appellate court judges. Two members of the current Court have similar prior judicial experience. In practice, that matters a great deal. Because the Court acts as a collaborative body of 7 when it decides cases, it is able to draw on prior trial and appellate expertise in every case. Plus, the vetting of nominees to the Supreme Court is quite intense, as it should be -- something that would be impractical for the political branches to replicate at the appellate court level. This is not the first time leaders of our State have considered how best to assign judges to the Appellate Division. When delegates gathered for the Constitutional Convention of 1947, they had many models to choose from -- including the one under consideration today. Instead, they sought to improve upon other approaches and selected what they believed was a superior model. Among other issues, witnesses and delegates debated two related topics: whether judges could be transferred by the Chief Justice among different parts of the Superior Court; and how to appoint judges to the intermediate appellate court. Governor Alfred Driscoll testified about both subjects at the Convention. On the afternoon of July 10, 1947, he offered the following insights: I would prefer that the members of . . . intermediate courts of appeal were drawn from the General [or Trial] Court. I would hope that that would give to the members of our General Court not only the unique experience that comes to a trial judge, but also the very important and entirely different type of experience that comes to a [person] who is called upon, in the absence of witnesses, to review a record and to make the kind of decisions that are required to be made when causes are brought from a trial court to an appellate court on appeal. . . . . Whether a [person] should be permanently assigned or temporarily assigned to hear a specific type of cause should, in the final analysis, it seems to me, be left to the judgment of the responsible head of our judicial system. . . . [A]s a result of his review of appeals, he will quickly come to know the varying talents of the trial judges. And he and his associates, better than anyone else, or any other group, will be in a position to determine whether a man or a woman, or men or women, should be permanently assigned to a particular division or whether they should be temporarily assigned for an experimental period. Other witnesses echoed Governor Driscoll’s words and spoke of the benefits of a unified, flexible system that gave substantial authority to the Chief Justice. A minority took the opposite position and voiced concerns that are being raised now again. George Smith, the President of Johnson & Johnson and a convention delegate, favored a system in which judges could be transferred rather than assigned permanently to a position. He responded to concerns about “the possibility of indiscriminate assignments” and noted, “I suppose the suggestion is that the time may come, or may even be here now, when the Chief Justice would improperly or capriciously move judges about. If that were to be done, I would believe that the Chief Justice would be derelict in his duty and subject to removal from his post.” Those words are relevant today to address hypothetical concerns that have not come to pass in three-quarters of a century. Sigurd Emerson, a practicing attorney and delegate, opposed the transfer of judges and offered a simple observation: “We don’t know how this will function.” Today, 75 years later, we know. With the benefit of experience, we know that the system of assigning judges from the trial court to the Appellate Division has enabled it to flourish. Governor Driscoll’s leadership stands out in yet another way. Not only did he oppose giving governors the power to nominate appellate judges under the new Constitution, subject to advice and consent, he also initiated the tradition of bipartisan balance that continues to this day in appointments to the trial court and the Supreme Court. The Constitution gave Governor Driscoll, a Republican, the power to nominate all 7 members of the newly constituted Supreme Court. Rather than select 7 individuals from his own party, he nominated 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Once again, I have strived over the years to maintain the same balance on the Appellate Division. Not counting 4 judges temporarily assigned at this time, I have assigned 52 trial court judges to the Appellate Division since 2008: 27 Republicans, 22 Democrats, and 3 Independents. Governor Driscoll’s thoughtful positions have withstood the test of time. He advocated for and then supported an independent, strong, balanced, and flexible Judiciary, with trial judges moving to the Appellate Division based on demonstrated skill and experience. His example -- and the results we have witnessed -- offer helpful guidance for today’s discussion. A Constitution is a foundational document in a democracy. It should not be amended lightly. When serious problems exist, it is certainly appropriate to debate how best to address and resolve them. That took place in 1947 over the course of many months of discussion and deliberations. Even more important, no problem has been identified that needs to be fixed. Our system works well on behalf of the people of New Jersey, as it has for 75 years. We should not amend the Constitution in a way that I fear would be a serious mistake -- that would likely delay justice and harm the public. One final thought. We have reason to be proud of the ongoing, longstanding dialogue between the Judiciary and the State Bar Association. It has been a partner in many endeavors to enhance the quality of the justice system in our State. Its strong voice on this issue is another example of its deep concern over the cause of justice. I thank the Bar again for hosting this convention and for inviting judges to participate, many of whom are here today. We look forward to continuing to work with you in the year ahead. Thank you all very much. Speaker Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Location Atlantic City
- State of the Judiciary Address, Speech Date Fri, 05/16/2025 - 12:00 Body Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Christine, for welcoming Chief Judge Bumb and me to participate in this year’s convention. It is an honor to be on this stage serving as a warm-up act of sorts for Associate Justice Stephen Breyer. We are very pleased to be able to hear from him soon. Congratulations to you, Chris, on being installed as bar president last evening, and thank you for your inspiring, meaningful, and supportive words. We look forward to working with you and your colleagues on a number of important projects in the year ahead. Thank you also to Bill Mergner. He has been a strong supporter and friend of the judiciary and has led the lawyers of this state with distinction. Thank you, Bill, for all that you have done. This morning, I’d like to speak with you about a series of developments during the past year that affected lawyers and the public. I’d also like to update you on certain initiatives that the judiciary continues to work on. At the start of the court year in September, the judiciary began to livestream oral arguments before the Appellate Division—a practice that has been in place for two decades at the Supreme Court. The goal is simple: to enhance transparency and access to the courts for lawyers and members of the public. Not everyone can attend oral arguments in Trenton or other parts of the state, where critical issues are debated and discussed. But today everyone can access written briefs in advance, and watch oral arguments in real time, by simply clicking on the judiciary’s website. Oral arguments are also archived and available to be viewed whenever it is convenient to do so. There are some common-sense exceptions for sensitive case types like proceedings to establish paternity, civil commitment hearings, and other matters. Those will not be broadcast live for good reason. The results to date are quite impressive. As of last week, the Appellate Division had livestreamed 778 oral arguments; only 12 others were not broadcast. That’s a credit to staff members and judges who enabled us to accomplish all that with a short amount of time to prepare. The judiciary is also committed to expand opportunities at the trial court level and allow the public to watch proceedings of great interest, like public corruption matters, in real time. And we will strive to continue to enhance public access to the courts in the years ahead. The judiciary has also taken steps in the past year that more directly affect lawyers and the practice of law. Last October, as you know, the court issued a series of rules that create a path back for attorneys who have been disbarred. The rules stem from the court’s decision in In re Wade several years ago, which called for the establishment of a committee to re-examine the issue of permanent disbarment. The committee, in turn, issued a report and a series of recommendations, which the court adopted in large measure. This marks the first time in 45 years that disbarred lawyers will have the opportunity to apply for readmission to the bar. The rules create a vigorous and fair review process to protect the public and also give lawyers a chance to practice law again after five years. That process is well underway. Nine disbarred attorneys sat for the bar exam in February; no doubt others will in the future, as happens in more than 40 states across the nation. We thank Justice Virginia Long and Camden County College President Dr. Lovell Pugh-Bassett, who co-chaired the committee, along with the practitioners, public members, representatives of the state bar, and others who served on it. We have also worked on the issue of succession planning for lawyers this past year. As all of us know, there are times when someone is needed to step in on a temporary basis, or to wind down a law practice, and ensure that existing clients are well served. That’s not an easy task. It can generate anxiety and challenges for clients and attorneys alike. We solicited comments from the bar, and the court then issued a notice that encourages New Jersey lawyers to designate successor attorneys to handle clients and other responsibilities. The court did not require the designation of a successor at this point. In addition to collecting basic information about successors, the judiciary will offer CLE programs for attorneys at no cost to provide guidance on this topic. Those steps align with recommendations that come, in part, from the Supreme Court’s Committee on Wellness. The committee, under the leadership of Justice Solomon, deserves thanks for its continuing efforts to raise awareness about health-related challenges and risks that practitioners, paralegals, law students, and judges all face. They range from mental health issues to substance abuse disorders as well as other serious problems. To address those very real concerns, the committee this past year worked with assignment judges to highlight available resources for colleagues in need; solicited input from attorneys, law school faculty, and judges of the Municipal and Superior Courts; collaborated on educational programming with the state bar; and met with leadership of the county bar associations to develop programming at the local level. That has already resulted in programs in Camden and Middlesex counties, with more to come. Both the judiciary and the state bar, like many public and private entities, have focused attention recently on artificial intelligence. For the legal community, questions abound: How will we use AI? What should we not use it for? What ethical implications are tied to the use of AI? And what will the practice of law look like in the future in a world shaped by AI—along with many other questions. The judiciary provided some guidance on the potential and risks generative AI poses in two documents: the court’s Statement of Principles and Preliminary Guidelines for Attorneys. The latter addresses the Rules of Professional Conduct and underscores the continued need to be accurate and truthful as we use AI in communications with clients, counsel, and the courts. The state bar also issued a report that touches on those and other issues, and has hosted many courses at this convention. We appreciate the opportunity to continue to work together with the bar on this important subject. The related topic of cybersecurity is seldom far from mind. Courts and lawyers are no different from the rest of society; we are at risk of cyberattacks that can have very serious consequences. Unfortunately, there have been many reports of law firms that have been compromised and subjected to ransomware demands. The courts have been affected as well. Last October, a court system in the Midwest was attacked by a sophisticated ransomware group from overseas. For several months, remote access and e-filing were disabled statewide. Lawyers and self-represented litigants either had to submit paper filings or go to the courthouse to plug into a computer and file electronically. And the state paid a ransom to restore access to the courts. We all have a stake in safeguarding the interests of clients and litigants, and in minimizing disruption to firms and the court system. That is why lawyers are required to notify the judiciary about suspected cybersecurity incidents—so that we can try to prevent against the danger of possibly infecting parts of the network or the court system as a whole. If you find yourself in that situation, simply call the Superior Court Clerk’s Office or go to the judiciary’s website for more information about how to report what happened. Another vital step is to learn more about the benefits and risks associated with technology as well as steps we can take to prevent those risks. With that in mind, the court last month approved a new CLE requirement that requires all of us—lawyers and judges alike—to take a standalone course related to technology for one credit each two-year reporting cycle. We will provide additional details in a future notice to the bar. We also welcome suggestions you may have on this and other pressing topics. Let me briefly update you on two ongoing Judiciary initiatives. The first relates to the judiciary’s JOBS program. The acronym stands for Judiciary Opportunities for Building Success. The initiative began a number of years ago for participants and graduates of Recovery Court, formerly known as Drug Court. We recently expanded the program to include the large number of individuals on probation. The program’s key aims are to provide training and help individuals find jobs with livable wages and benefits. That’s because we know from experience that people with stable employment stand a better chance of turning their lives around. They’re also less likely to commit new crimes and return to court. Last year, the JOBS program held more than 100 job fairs across the state; worked with community colleges to develop programs for probation clients; and engaged with companies involved in food services, delivery services, retail sales, and other areas—companies that have provided job opportunities. We’ve also had strong support from the Department of Labor, which provided about $2.8 million in funding this fiscal year. Special thanks go to retired Judge Mark Sandson and Judge Grant for their leadership of this project in recent years. Since 2019, the judiciary has also focused on an initiative relating to mental health. Today, we have pilot projects in five Vicinages: Atlantic, Camden, Essex, Middlesex, and Morris/Sussex. They participate in diversion programs designed to identify individuals with serious mental illness who face criminal charges for less serious offenses early in the criminal process. The program tries to connect them with existing treatment services and other community resources. We are also very pleased to participate in a new mental health initiative that stems from legislation Senator [Teresa] Ruiz sponsored. The new law provides for the diversion of defendants who have committed non-violent offenses at a later point in the criminal process. It also calls for the attorney general to designate at least three sites. The broader aim of both related programs is to address underlying health problems to try to put a stop to the cycle of arrest, conviction, sentence, and release, which is repeated again and again. I want to thank our judges for their help with those and other efforts. That includes the One-Judge-One-School program through which judges enhance public understanding of the role of the courts in our nation. I especially thank our judges for tackling demanding caseloads on an ongoing basis. With a considerable backlog built up from COVID and 52 judicial vacancies at this time, it is challenging for courts to reach cases as promptly as we would like to see. Yet judges continue to work diligently, with professionalism, skill, and determination every day. I am grateful for their sustained efforts and ask our partners in the other branches of government to provide relief from the high number of vacancies in the coming weeks and months. I’d like to add a few thoughts about two judges, starting with Judge Glenn Grant. He retired weeks ago after an illustrious career with the judiciary. He served as one of the preeminent Family Part judges in our state and then for 16 years as administrative director of the courts. His leadership in so many areas helped enhance the system of justice in our state. And his influence will continue to be felt for years to come. Some of you know Judge Michael Blee, the new administrative director. Many more will get to know him soon as he travels to each Vicinage in the months ahead and meets with judges and bar groups. I am confident he will carry on the long tradition of excellence in this position in his own way. Before closing, I want to return to where we began with a few additional thoughts on recent efforts to better enable the public to follow the work of the courts. When I joined the judiciary, I asked the IT staff how many people watched oral arguments livestreamed by the Supreme Court. The answer surprised me: roughly 2,000 people watch each argument live; as many as 15,000 viewers watch high-profile cases; and more still watch archived recordings. What do they see—then and now? Lawyers advancing arguments in good faith on behalf of clients. And judges in trial courts, the Appellate Division, and the Supreme Court who are prepared, who listen attentively, who understand the intricacies of the cases, and who make rulings. They see judges who base their decisions not on personal or political views. Not on the background or power of the parties before them. But on the text of the statute in question, the words of the state and federal Constitutions, and relevant case law. In other words, they see judges faithfully apply the rule of law—the cornerstone of our system of fair and equal justice and of our democracy. Attorneys facilitate that noble aim by presenting arguments rooted in sound legal principles. And judges, consistent with their oath, are obligated to uphold the rule of law in case after case, now and in the future. The judiciary, an independent branch of government, must not—and cannot—do otherwise. We welcome your continued support as we together strive to uphold those critical values and principles. Thank you to the State Bar once again for hosting this annual convention. It helps foster an important, ongoing dialogue between the bench and the bar. I hope you enjoy the rest of the conference. Thank you very much. Speaker Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Location Atlantic City
- Landlord Tenant Procedures CN: 12822 Translations Available Translation exists logo.
- 1:2-4-Sanctions: Failure to Appear; Motions and Briefs 1:2-4, Failure to Appear., Except as provided in R. 7:8-9A, if without just excuse or because of failure to give reasonable attention to the matter, no appearance is made on behalf of a party on the call of a calendar, on the return of a motion, at a pretrial conference, settlement conference, or any other proceeding scheduled by the court, or on the day of trial, or if an application is made for an adjournment, the court may order any one or more of the following: (a) the payment by the delinquent attorney or party or by the party applying for the adjournment of costs, in such amount as the court shall fix, to the Clerk of the Court made payable to "Treasurer, State of New Jersey," or to the adverse party; (b) the payment by the delinquent attorney or party or the party applying for the adjournment of the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, to the aggrieved party; (c) the dismissal of the complaint, cross-claim, counterclaim or motion, or the striking of the answer and the entry of judgment by default, or the granting of the motion; or (d) such other action as it deems appropriate. , Motions; Briefs, . For failure to comply with the requirements of R. 1:6-3, 1:6- 4 and 1:6-5 for filing motion papers and briefs and for failure to submit a required brief, the court may dismiss or grant the motion or application, continue the hearing to the next motion day or take such other action as it deems appropriate. If the hearing is continued, the court may impose sanctions as provided by paragraph (a) of this rule. Note: Source-R.R. 1:8-5, 4:5-5(b) (second sentence), 4:5-10(e), 4:6-3(b), 4:29-1(c), 4:41-6. Amended June 20, 1979 to be effective July 1, 1979; paragraph (a) amended November 7, 1988 to be effective January 2, 1989; paragraph (a) amended June 28, 1996 to be effective September 1, 1996; paragraph (a) amended July 27, 2006 to be effective September 1, 2006; paragraph (a) amended July 17, 2018 to be effective September 1, 2018. Part 1
- 1:1-2-Construction and Relaxation; References to Marriage, Spouse and Related Terms 1:1-2 The rules in Part I through Part VIII, inclusive, shall be construed to secure a just determination, simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay. Unless otherwise stated, any rule may be relaxed or dispensed with by the court in which the action is pending if adherence to it would result in an injustice. In the absence of rule, the court may proceed in any manner compatible with these purposes and, in civil cases, consistent with the case management/trial management guidelines set forth in Appendix XX of these rules. As used in Part I through Part VIII of these rules and appendices, references to "marriage," "husband," "wife," "spouse," "family," "immediate family," "dependent," "next of kin," "widow," "widower," "widowed," or another word that in a specific context denotes a marital or spousal relationship shall include a civil union, as established by N.J.S.A. 37:1-28 to -36, and a domestic partnership, as established by N.J.S.A. 26:8A-1 to -13, and the persons in those relationships. Note: Source -- R.R. 1:27A, 3:1-2, 3:11-9, 4:1-2, 4:121, 6:1-1 (second sentence), 6:1-2, 8:1-2. Amended June 20, 1979 to be effective July 1, 1979; amended July 5, 2000 to be effective September 5, 2000; caption amended, former text designated as paragraph (a), and new paragraph (b) adopted July 16, 2009 to be effective September 1, 2009; paragraph (b) amended July 21, 2011 to be effective September 1, 2011. Part 1
- 1:2-1-Proceedings in Open Court; Robes 1:2-1, Open Court Requirement., All trials, hearings of motions and other applications, first appearances, pretrial conferences, arraignments, sentencing conferences (except with members of the probation department) and appeals shall be conducted in open court unless otherwise provided by rule or statute. , Contemporaneous, , Transmission of Testimony., Upon application in advance of appearance, unless otherwise provided by statute, the court may permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from a different location for good cause and with appropriate safeguards. , Sealing; Settlement Conferences., If a proceeding is required to be conducted in open court, no record of any portion thereof shall be sealed by order of the court except for good cause shown, as defined by R. 1:38-11(b), which shall be set forth on the record. Settlement conferences may be heard at the bench or in chambers. , Robes., Every judge shall wear judicial robes during proceedings in open court, including those conducted pursuant to paragraph (b). Note: Source – R.R. 1:28-6, 3:5-1 (first clause), 4:29-5, 4:118-5, 7:7-1, 8:13-7(c); amended July 14, 1992 to be effective September 1, 1992; amended July 16, 2009 to be effective September 1, 2009; amended July 27, 2018 to be effective September 1, 2018; text redesignated as paragraphs (a) (c) and (d) with captions added and text of paragraph (d) amended, and new paragraph (b) adopted July 30, 2021 to be effective September 1, 2021; paragraph (b) caption amended August 5, 2022 to be effective September 1, 2022. Part 1
- 1:4-4-Affidavits 1:4-4, Form., Every affidavit shall run in the first person and be divided into numbered paragraphs as in pleadings. The caption shall include a designation of the particular proceeding the affidavit supports or opposes and the original date, if any, fixed for hearing. Ex parte affidavits may be taken outside the State by a person authorized to take depositions under R. 4:12-2 and R. 4:12-3. , Certification in Lieu of Oath., In lieu of the affidavit, oath, or verification required by these rules, the affiant may submit the following certification, which shall be dated and immediately precede the affiant's signature: “I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.” , Requirement for Original Signature., Every affidavit or certification shall be filed with an original signature, except that a copy of an affidavit or certification may be filed instead, provided that the affiant signs a document that is sent by facsimile or in Portable Document Format (PDF), or similar format, by the affiant and provided that the attorney or party filing the copy of the affidavit or certification files the original document if requested by the court or a party. Note: Source -- R.R. 1:27F, 4:10-4; paragraph (c) adopted June 29, 1990 to be effective September 4, 1990; paragraph (b) amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994; paragraph (c) caption and text amended July 22, 2014 to be effective September 1, 2014. Part 1
- 1:4-1-Caption: Name and Addresses of Party and Attorney; Format 1:4-1, Caption., Every paper to be filed shall contain a caption setting forth the name, division and part thereof, if any, of the court, the county in which the venue in a Superior Court action is laid, the title of the action, the docket number except in the case of a complaint, the designation "Civil Action" or "Criminal Action", as appropriate, and a designation such as "complaint", "order", or the like. In a complaint in a civil action, the title of the action shall include the names of all the parties, but in other papers it need state only the name of the first party on each side with an appropriate indication that there are other parties. Except as otherwise provided by R. 5:4-2(a), the first pleading of any party shall state the party's residence address, or, if not a natural person, the address of its principal place of business. , Format; Addresses., At the top of the first page of each paper filed, a blank space of approximately 3 inches shall be reserved for notations of receipt and filing by the clerk. Above the caption at the left-hand margin of the first sheet of every paper to be filed there shall be printed or typed the name and the New Jersey attorney identification number of the attorney filing the paper, office address and telephone number or, if a party is appearing pro se, the name of such party, residence address and telephone number. No paper shall bear an attorney's post office box number in lieu of a street address. An attorney or pro se party shall advise the court and all other parties of a change of address or telephone number if such occurs during the pendency of an action. Note: Source - R.R.. 4:5-8, 4:10-1, 5:5-1(e), 7:5-2(a) (first two sentences); paragraph (a) amended December 20, 1983 to be effective December 31, 1983; paragraph (a) redesignated as paragraph (a)(1) and paragraph (a)(2) added November 7, 1988 to be effective January 2, 1989; paragraph (b) amended July 14, 1992 to be effective September 1, 1992; paragraph (a)(1) amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994; paragraph (b) amended July 28, 2004 to be effective September 1, 2004; paragraph (a)(2) caption and text deleted, paragraph (a)(1) caption deleted, and paragraph (b) amended July 9, 2008 to be effective September 1, 2008; paragraph (b) amended July 9, 2013 to be effective September 1, 2013. Part 1
- 1:5-1-Service: When Required 1:5-1, Civil Actions., In all civil actions, unless otherwise provided by rule or court order, orders, judgments, pleadings subsequent to the original complaint, written motions (not made ex parte), briefs, appendices, petitions and other papers except a judgment signed by the clerk shall be served upon all attorneys of record in the action and upon parties appearing pro se; but no service need be made on parties who have failed to appear except that pleadings asserting new or additional claims for relief against such parties in default shall be served upon them in the manner provided for service of original process. The party obtaining an order or judgment shall serve it on all parties who have not been electronically served through an approved Electronic Court System pursuant to R. 1:32-2A, nor served personally in court, as herein prescribed within 7 days after the date it was signed unless the court otherwise orders therein. , Criminal and Municipal Actions., In criminal and municipal actions, unless otherwise provided by rule or court order, written motions (not made ex parte), briefs, appendices, petitions, memoranda and other papers shall be served upon all attorneys of record in the action, upon parties appearing pro se and upon such other agencies of government as may be affected by the relief sought. Note: Source — R.R. 3:11-4(a), 4:5-1. Paragraph (a) amended July 16, 1979 to be effective September 10, 1979; paragraph (b) amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994; paragraph (b) amended August 1, 2016 to be effective September 1, 2016; paragraph (a) amended July 27, 2018 to be effective September 1, 2018. Part 1
- 1:6-3-Filing and Service of Motions and Cross-Motions 1:6-3, Motions Generally., Other than an ex parte motion and except as otherwise provided by R. 4:6-2(e) (dismissal for failure to state a claim), R. 4:46-1 (summary judgment) and R. 5:5-4(c) (post judgment motions), a notice of motion shall be filed and served not later than 16 days before the specified return date unless otherwise provided by court order, which may be applied for ex parte. Thus, for example, if the return date of the motion is a Friday, the motion must be filed and served not later than the Wednesday, 16 days prior. If a motion is supported by affidavit or certification, the affidavit or certification shall be filed and served with the motion. Except as provided by R. 4:49-1(b) (motion for new trial), any opposing affidavits, certifications or objections filed pursuant to R. 1:6-2 shall be filed and served not later than 8 days before the return date unless the court relaxes that time. Thus, for example, if the return date is on a Friday, any response must be filed and served no later than Thursday of the prior week. Reply papers responding to opposing affidavits or certifications shall be filed and served not later than 4 days before the return date unless the court otherwise orders. Thus, for example, such papers must be filed and served on Monday for a return date of the following Friday. No other papers may be filed without leave of court. , Cross-Motions., A cross-motion may be filed and served by the responding party together with that party's opposition to the motion and noticed for the same return date only if it relates to the subject matter of the original motion, except in Family Part motions brought under Part V of these Rules where a notice of cross-motion may seek relief unrelated to that sought in the original motion. A cross-motion relating to the subject matter of the original motion shall, if timely filed pursuant to this rule, relate back to the date of the filing of the original motion. The original moving party's response to the cross-motion shall be filed and served as provided by paragraph (a) for reply papers. The court may, however, on request of the original moving party, or on its own motion, enlarge the time for filing an answer to the cross-motion, or fix a new return date for both. No reply papers may be served or filed by the cross-movant without leave of court. , Completion of Service., For purposes of this rule, service of motion papers is complete only on receipt at the office of adverse counsel or the address of a pro se party. If service is by ordinary mail, receipt will be presumed on the third business day after mailing. Note: Source – R.R. 3:11-1, 4:6-3(a); amended July 24, 1978 to be effective September 11, 1978; amended July 16, 1979 to be effective September 10, 1979; amended July 16, 1981 to be effective September 14, 1981; amended November 1, 1985 to be effective January 2, 1986; amended June 29, 1990 to be effective September 4, 1990; amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994; amended and paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) designated July 10, 1998 to be effective September 1, 1998; paragraph (a) amended July 5, 2000 to be effective September 5, 2000; paragraph (b) amended July 12, 2002 to be effective September 3, 2002; paragraph (b) amended June 15, 2007 to be effective September 1, 2007; paragraph (b) amended July 16, 2009 to be effective September 1, 2009; paragraph (a) amended July 31, 2020 to be effective September 1, 2020. Part 1
- 1:5-4-Service by Mail or Courier: When Complete 1:5-4, Service by Ordinary Mail if Registered or Certified Mail Is Required and Is Refused., Where under any rule, provision is made for service by certified or registered mail, service may also be made by ordinary mail simultaneously or thereafter, unless simultaneous service is required under these rules. , Service Complete on Mailing., Except for motions that are governed by R. 1:6- 3(c), service by mail of any paper referred to in R. 1:5-1, when authorized by rule or court order, shall be complete upon mailing of the ordinary mail. If no ordinary mailing is made, service shall be deemed complete upon the date of acceptance of the certified or registered mail. If service is simultaneously made by ordinary mail and certified or registered mail, service shall be deemed complete on mailing of the ordinary mail. If service is not made simultaneously and the addressee accepts the certified or registered mail, service shall be deemed complete on the date of the acceptance. If the addressee fails to claim or refuses to accept delivery of certified or registered mail, service shall be deemed complete on mailing of the ordinary mail. , Service by Commercial Courier., Service by a commercial courier of a paper referred to in R. 1:5-1, except for motions, which are governed by R. 1:6-3, shall be complete upon the courier's receipt of the paper from the sender, provided the courier's regular business is delivery service, and provided further that it guarantees delivery to the addressee by the end of the next business day following the courier's receipt from the sender. Note: Source-R.R. 4:5-2(a) (fifth sentence). Paragraph (a) adopted and former rule designated (b) June 29, 1973 to be effective September 10, 1973; amended November 1, 1985 to be effective January 2, 1986; paragraph (b) amended and paragraph (c) added July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994; paragraph (b) amended July 10, 1998 to be effective September 1, 1998; paragraph (a) amended July 28, 2004 to be effective September 1, 2004; paragraphs (a) and (b) amended July 27, 2006 to be effective September 1, 2006. Part 1
- 1:7-1-Opening and Closing Statement 1:7-1, Opening Statement., Before any evidence is offered at trial, the State in a criminal action or the plaintiff in a civil action, unless otherwise provided in the pretrial order, shall make an opening statement. A defendant who chooses to make an opening statement shall do so immediately thereafter. , Closing Statement., After the close of the evidence and except as may be otherwise ordered by the court, the parties may make closing statements in the reverse order of opening statements. In civil cases any party may suggest to the trier of fact, with respect to any element of damages, that unliquidated damages be calculated on a time-unit basis without reference to a specific sum. In the event such comments are made to a jury, the judge shall instruct the jury that they are argument only and do not constitute evidence. Note: Source - R.R. 3:7-3, 4:44-1, 7:8-4; former rule redesignated as paragraph (a), paragraph (b) adopted and caption amended July 15, 1982 to be effective September 13, 1982; paragraph (a) amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994; paragraph (b) amended July 12, 2002 to be effective September 3, 2002; paragraph (b) amended July 27, 2006 to be effective September 1, 2006. Part 1
- 1:8-8-Materials to be Submitted to the Jury (Exhibits and Lists; Jury Instructions); Note-Taking; Juror Questions 1:8-8, Exhibits and Lists., The jury may take into the jury room the exhibits received in evidence, and if the court so directs in a civil action, a list of the claims made by the parties and of the defenses to such claims, a list of the various items of damage upon which proof was submitted at the trial and a list of the verdicts that may be properly found by the jury. Any such list may be prepared by an attorney or the court, but before delivery to the jury, it shall be submitted to all parties. The court may also, in its discretion and at such time and in such format as it shall determine, permit the submission to the jury of individual copies of any exhibit provided an appropriate request to employ that technique was made prior to trial on notice to all parties and provided further that the court finds that no party will be unduly prejudiced by the procedure. , Copies of Jury Instructions., Civil Cases., In civil cases, the court in its discretion may submit a copy of its instructions to the jury for its consideration in the jury room. The court may consider the following factors in exercising its discretion to provide a copy of its instructions to the jury in a civil case: (1) the track to which the case is assigned; (2) a request of one or more parties for submission of written instructions to the jury; (3) the length of the trial; (4) the complexity of the issues and charge; (5) whether the parties timely submitted a proposed charge to the court; (6) whether providing written instructions would unreasonably delay the proceedings; and (7) any other factor based upon the circumstances of the case. , Criminal Cases., In criminal cases, the court shall submit two or more copies of its final instructions to the jury for the jury's use in the jury room during deliberations. The court may, however, dispense with the submission of the jury instructions in writing if it finds that preparation of written instructions will cause undue delay in the trial. Counsel's failure to submit written instructions upon request of the court in accordance with Rule 1:8-7(b) shall be a consideration for a finding of undue delay in the trial. , Juror Note-Taking., Prior to opening statements, the attorneys or any party may request that the jury be permitted to take notes during the trial or portion thereof, including opening and closing statements. If the court determines to permit note-taking after all parties have had an opportunity to be heard, it shall provide the jurors with notetaking materials and shall take such steps as will ensure the security and confidentiality of each juror's notes. , Juror Questions., Prior to the commencement of the voir dire of prospective jurors in a civil action, the court shall determine whether to allow jurors to propose questions to be asked of the witnesses. The court shall make its determination after the parties have been given an opportunity to address the issue, but they need not consent. If the court determines to permit jurors to submit proposed questions, it shall explain to the jury in its opening remarks that subject to the rules of evidence and the court's discretion, questions by the jurors will be allowed for the purpose of clarifying the testimony of a witness. The jurors' questions shall be submitted to the court in writing at the conclusion of the testimony of each witness and before the witness is excused. The court, with counsel, shall review the questions out of the presence of the jury. Counsel shall state on the record any objections they may have, and the court shall rule on the permissibility of each question. The witness shall then be recalled, and the court shall ask the witness those questions ruled permissible. Counsel shall, on request, be permitted to reopen direct and cross-examination to respond to the jurors' questions and the witness's answers. A witness who has been excused shall not be recalled to respond to juror questions unless all counsel and the court agree or unless the court otherwise orders for good cause shown. Note: Source-R.R. 4:52-2; caption and text amended July 15, 1982 to be effective September 13, 1982; amended and paragraphs (a) and (b) designated July 10, 1998 to be effective September 1, 1998; new paragraph (c) added July 12, 2002 to be effective September 3, 2002; caption amended July 28, 2004 to be effective September 1, 2004; paragraph (c) amended July 27, 2006 to be effective September 1, 2006; paragraph (a) amended July 19, 2012 to be effective September 4, 2012; caption amended, paragraph (a) caption and text amended, new paragraph (b) adopted (with subparagraph (b)(1) text relocated from paragraph (a) and subparagraph (b)(2) text new), former paragraphs (b) and (c) redesignated as paragraphs (c) and (d) July 9, 2013 to be effective January 1, 2014. Part 1
- 1:8-2-Number of Jurors 1:8-2, Number Deliberating in Criminal Actions., A deliberating jury in a criminal action shall consist of 12 persons, but at any time before verdict the parties may stipulate that the jury shall consist of any number less than 12. Such stipulations shall be in writing and with the approval of the court. , Number Deliberating in Civil Actions., A deliberating jury in a civil action shall consist of six persons unless: for good cause shown the court orders a jury of 12 persons pursuant to a demand made in accordance with R. 1:8-1(b); or fewer than six jurors remain prior to commencement of deliberations and the parties then agree on the record to submit the case to the remaining jurors; or more than six jurors remain prior to the commencement of deliberations and the parties then agree on the record that all remaining jurors shall deliberate. , Verdict in Civil Actions, . Unless the parties have agreed on the record prior to commencement of deliberations to accept a verdict or finding by a lesser number, the verdict or finding shall be by agreement of five jurors when six jurors deliberate, and by 10 jurors when 12 jurors deliberate. If the parties have agreed on the record to submit the case to fewer than six jurors, pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this rule, the verdict or finding shall be unanimous, unless the parties have also agreed on the record prior to commencement of deliberations to a verdict or finding by a lesser number. If the parties have agreed on the record to more than six jurors pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this rule, the verdict or finding shall be by agreement of five-sixths of the deliberating jurors, unless the parties have otherwise agreed on the record prior to commencement of deliberations. , d. Alternate Jurors; Civil and Criminal Actions., All Actions., The court in its discretion may direct the impanelling of a jury of such number as it deems necessary to ensure that a sufficient number of jurors will remain to deliberate. If a juror is excused after being sworn but before opening statements begin, another juror may be impanelled and sworn, but no juror may be empaneled and sworn thereafter. All the jurors shall sit and hear the case, but the court for good cause shown may excuse any of them from service provided the number of jurors is not reduced to less than 12 or 6 as the case may be or such other number as may be stipulated to. If more than such number are left on the jury at the conclusion of the court's charge, the clerk of the court in the jury's presence shall randomly draw such number of names as will reduce the jury to the number required to determine the issues. Following the drawing of the names of jurors to determine the issues, the court may in its discretion order that the alternate jurors not be discharged, in which event the alternate jurors shall be sequestered apart from the other jurors and shall be subject to the same orders and instructions of the court, with respect to sequestration and other matters, as the other jurors. If the alternate jurors are not discharged and if at any time after submission of the case to the jury, a juror dies or is discharged by the court because of illness or other inability to continue, the court may direct the clerk to draw the name of an alternate juror to take the place of the juror who is deceased or discharged. When such a substitution of an alternate juror is made, the court shall instruct the jury to recommence deliberations and shall give the jury such other supplemental instructions as may be appropriate. , Civil Actions., In civil actions, instead of selecting alternate jurors, the parties may agree on the record, pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this rule, that all remaining jurors shall deliberate and that the verdict or finding shall be returned by such number as is provided by paragraph (c)(3) of this rule. Note: Source — R.R. 3:7-1(b), 3:7-2(d), 4:48-2, 4:49-1(a)(b). Amended July 7, 1971 to be effective September 13, 1971; paragraph (d) amended July 14, 1972 to be effective September 5, 1972; paragraph (d) amended June 29, 1973 to be effective September 10, 1973; paragraph (b) amended July 17, 1975 to be effective September 8, 1975; paragraph (d) amended July 29, 1977 to be effective September 6, 1977; paragraph (d) amended July 21, 1980 to be effective September 8, 1980; paragraph (a) amended September 28, 1982 to be effective immediately; paragraph (d) amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994; amended July 10, 1998 to be effective September 1, 1998; paragraph (a) amended July 27, 2018 to be effective September 1, 2018. Part 1
- 1:8-7-Requests to Charge the Jury 1:8-7, In Civil Cases., Either within the time provided by R. 4:25-7 or thereafter but before the close of the evidence, as to issues not anticipated prior to trial, any party may submit written requests that the court instruct the jury on the law as set forth in the requests. The requests shall make specific reference to the Model Civil Jury Charges, if applicable, or to applicable law. Copies of the requests shall be provided to all parties at the time they are submitted to the court. The court shall, on the record, rule on the requests prior to closing arguments to the jury. A verbatim record shall be made of any charge conference the court holds. Objections to the instructions to the jury shall be in accordance with R. 1:7-2. , In Criminal Cases., Prior to closing arguments, the court shall hold a charge conference on the record in all criminal cases. The parties shall, if directed by the court, make requests to charge in a format suitable for ready preparation and submission to the jury at a time directed by the court. Copies of the requests shall be provided to all parties at the time they are submitted to the court. Whenever practicable, the court in advance of the charge conference shall provide counsel with a copy of its proposed jury charge for review, which copy shall be marked as a court exhibit. At the conference the court shall advise counsel of the offenses, defenses and other legal issues to be charged and shall rule on requests made by counsel. Objections to the instructions to the jury shall be in accordance with R. 1:7-2. Any party, at or before commencement of trial, may submit written requests that the court instruct the jury on the law as set forth in the requests. As to issues not anticipated prior to trial, any party may submit written requests before closing arguments. Note: R.R. 3:7-7(a), 4:52-1 (first and second sentences); amended July 21, 1980 to be effective September 8, 1980; paragraph (a) caption and new paragraph (b) added July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994; paragraph (a) amended July 10, 1998 to be effective September 1, 1998; paragraph (a) amended July 5, 2000 to be effective September 5, 2000; paragraph (b) amended July 9, 2013 to be effective January 1, 2014; rule caption amended, paragraph (a) caption amended, and paragraphs (a) and (b) amended March 4, 2014 to be effective immediately; paragraph (b) amended May 14, 2014 to be effective immediately. Part 1
- 1:10-2-Summary Contempt Proceedings on Order to Show Cause or Order for Arrest 1:10-2, Institution of Proceedings., Every summary proceeding to punish for contempt other than proceedings under R. 1:10-1 shall be on notice and instituted only by the court upon an order for arrest or an order to show cause specifying the acts or omissions alleged to have been contumacious. The proceedings shall be captioned "In the Matter of ______ Charged with Contempt of Court." , Release Pending Hearings., A person charged with contempt under R. 1:10-2 shall be released on his or her own recognizance pending the hearing unless the judge determines that bail is reasonably necessary to assure appearance. The amount and sufficiency of bail shall be reviewable by a single judge of the Appellate Division. , Prosecution and Trial., A proceeding under R. 1:10-2 may be prosecuted on behalf of the court only by the Attorney General, the County Prosecutor of the county or, where the court for good cause designates an attorney, then by the attorney so designated. The matter shall not be heard by the judge who instituted the prosecution if the appearance of objectivity requires trial by another judge. Unless there is a right to a trial by jury, the court in its discretion may try the matter without a jury. If there is an adjudication of contempt, the provisions of R. 1:10-1 as to stay of execution of sentence shall apply. Note: Source-R.R. 4:87-2; former R. 1:10-2 redesignated R. 1:10-2(a), former R. 1:10-3 amended, recaptioned and redesignated R. 1:10-2(b) and former R. 1:10-4 amended, recaptioned and redesignated R. 1:10-2(c) July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994. Part 1
- 1:10-1-Summary Contempt in Presence of Court 1:10-1 A judge conducting a judicial proceeding may adjudicate contempt summarily without an order to show cause if: the conduct has obstructed, or if continued would obstruct, the proceeding; the conduct occurred in the actual presence of the judge, and was actually seen or heard by the judge; the character of the conduct or its continuation after an appropriate warning unmistakably demonstrates its willfulness; immediate adjudication is necessary to permit the proceeding to continue in an orderly and proper manner; and the judge has afforded the alleged contemnor an immediate opportunity to respond. The order of contempt shall recite the facts and contain a certification by the judge that he or she saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt and that the contemnor was willfully contumacious. Punishment may be determined forthwith or deferred. Execution of sentence shall be stayed for five days following imposition and, if an appeal is taken, during the pendency of the appeal, provided, however, that the judge may require bail if reasonably necessary to assure the contemnor's appearance. Note: Source-R.R. 4:87-1, 8:8; amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994. Part 1
- 1:8-1-Trial by Jury 1:8-1, Criminal Actions., Criminal actions required to be tried by a jury shall be so tried unless the defendant, in writing and with the approval of the court, after notice to the prosecuting attorney and an opportunity to be heard, waives a jury trial. , Civil Actions., Issues in civil actions triable of right by a jury shall be so tried only if a jury trial is demanded by a party in accordance with R. 4:35-1 or R. 6:5-3, as applicable, and is not thereafter waived. If a jury of twelve is requested, that request shall be included in the jury demand. Note: Source — R.R. 3:7-1(a), 4:40-3; paragraph (a) amended September 28, 1982 to be effective immediately; paragraph (a) amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994; captions added to paragraphs (a) and (b) and paragraph (b) amended July 10, 1998 to be effective September 1, 1998; paragraph (a) amended July 27, 2018 to be effective September 1, 2018. Part 1
- 1:8-6-Sequestration of Juries 1:8-6, Prior to Instructing of Jury., The jury shall not be sequestered in any action, civil or criminal, prior to the instructing of the jury by the court, unless the court, in its discretion so orders on its finding that there are extraordinary circumstances requiring sequestration for the protection of the jurors or in the interests of justice. , Following Instructing of Jury., Following the instructing of the jury by the court and during the course of deliberations, the court may, in its discretion, in both civil and criminal actions, permit the dispersal of the jury for the night, for meals, and during other authorized intermissions in the deliberations. Note: Source-R.R. 3:7-2(f). Amended July 14, 1972 to be effective September 5, 1972. Part 1
- 1:13-1-Clerical Mistakes 1:13-1 Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight and omission may at any time be corrected by the court on its own initiative or on the motion of any party, and on such notice and terms as the court directs, notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal. Note: Source-R.R. 3:7-14, 4:62-1, 8:7-12. Part 1