TOP COURT REAFFIRMS FORFEITURE TRIAL RIGHT

The state Supreme Court has rejected a request by the attorney general to
narrow its ruling giving the right to jury trials to some 2,500 people
whose property was seized in connection with drug cases or other crimes.

The justices, in a one-page order made public yesterday, said virtually
anyone with a pending forfeiture case, including those on appeal, is
entitled to a jury trial.

Attorney General Peter Verniero had asked the court to apply its ruling
only to future cases, saying to do otherwise would clog the courts.

Since the late 1970s, prosecutors throughout New Jersey have seized cars,
cash, even homes as part of the state's "war on drugs." The idea was to
take the financial incentive out of drug trafficking.

Money raised from the sale of seized items is funneled back to law
enforcement and used to buy bulletproof vests and other equipment for
police. Law enforcement officials love the program. Last year they seized
$16.9 million worth of property. But since its inception it has had its
critics.

The hearings on whether the seizures were proper have been held before
judges. In July, the Supreme Court ruled that people who were subjected to
the forfeiture laws of the state are entitled to a jury trial.

Yesterday, the court said trials would be available to anyone with a case
that is still active, including those on direct appeal.

"I think it will go a long way to restoring some sanity," said John T. Paff
of Forfeiture Endangers American Rights Inc., a group that believes forcing
people who have not been convicted of a crime to give up property is an
abuse of power.

Paff said it is only fair that people with active cases be able to ask for
a jury trial, if they want one.

Verniero said yesterday it was "too early to tell what the impact of this
decision will be," since he had no idea how many people will request jury
trials. But he continued to express concern that it could create problems
for the courts and undermine the effectiveness of the forfeiture programs
used by all 21 county prosecutors.

"I don't take back anything I said previously," said Verniero. "My reaction
to the case originally is it really did concern me because of its impact on
the administration of justice, management of jury trials and the effect on
our anti-drug strategy. But the court has now spoken, and obviously we'll
comply with the court order."

On July 15, the court said Lois McDermott of Highlands was entitled to jury
trial. McDermott, a 67-year-old mother whose 1990 Honda was seized when her
adult son used it in connection with a drug deal, felt a jury would be more
sympathetic than a judge.

Elizabeth Macron, McDermott's lawyer, essentially argued that it was unfair
to take McDermott's car because she did not have anything to do with the
drug dealing and never gave her 46-year-old son permission to use the
vehicle.

Paff said a jury probably would look at the McDermott case, realize she had
nothing to do with her son's drug activities, and view seizure as
improperly punishing her. While judges are more inclined to rigidly follow
the law, Paff said, "Juries will take a humanistic approach."

Paff further argued the forfeiture laws are "an invitation for abuse"
because the same police and prosecutors that seize property benefit
financially from the seizure.

Checked-by: Richard Lake