## Facts

- Jesse Timmendequas was indicted for the purposeful/knowing murder of seven-year-old Megan Kanka, felony murder, first-degree kidnapping, and first-degree aggravated sexual assault.
- The State filed notice of capital aggravating factors, including that the murder occurred during kidnapping/sexual assault and was committed to avoid detection for those crimes.
- The case generated extraordinary pretrial publicity, including national attention associated with enactment of “Megan’s Law.”
- The trial court initially granted a change of venue from Mercer County due to publicity, but reconsidered after the State asserted significant hardship to the victim’s family from a distant venue.
- The court kept the trial in Mercer County but empaneled a “foreign jury” drawn from Hunterdon County, coupled with extensive voir dire to screen for bias.
- A jury convicted Timmendequas of capital murder, felony murder, kidnapping, and aggravated sexual assault.
- After a penalty phase, the jury found the noticed aggravating factors and imposed a death sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether keeping the trial in the county of offense while importing a foreign jury from another county, and considering victim-family hardship under the state victims’ rights provision, violated the defendant’s rights to an impartial jury and due process.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error in guilt-phase rulings, including admitting the defendant’s statements and denying suppression motions.
3. Whether the penalty-phase instructions and findings on statutory aggravating and mitigating factors supported imposition of a death sentence under New Jersey law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the convictions and death sentence.
- The Court upheld the trial court’s use of a foreign jury from Hunterdon County with trial in Mercer County.
- The Court held the procedure preserved the defendant’s right to an impartial jury and did not violate due process.
- The Court rejected challenges to the admissibility of the defendant’s statements and to suppression rulings.
- The Court held the evidence supported the aggravating factors and that the jury properly weighed aggravating and mitigating evidence.

## Legal Principles

- The constitutional guarantee is an impartial jury, not a jury drawn from a particular county; impartiality may be secured through jury selection procedures, including searching voir dire.
- In cases of intense pretrial publicity, a trial court may use a foreign-jury procedure (importing jurors from a less-affected county) as a permissible alternative to changing venue, so long as fairness is maintained.
- Victims’ constitutional and statutory rights (including the right to attend critical proceedings without undue burden) may be considered in trial-management decisions, provided the defendant’s fair-trial rights are not compromised.
- Capital sentencing requires proof and proper submission of statutory aggravating factors, an opportunity to present mitigating evidence, and a lawful weighing process by the jury.

## Conclusion

The New Jersey Supreme Court approved a trial-management approach that kept the trial in the county where the crime occurred while importing a foreign jury to mitigate pretrial publicity, held that considering victim-family hardship did not undermine the defendant’s fair-trial rights, and affirmed the capital convictions and death sentence.


State v. Timmendequas, 737 A.2d 55 (N.J. 1999)