State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Khalid Mohammed, Defendant-Appellant

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division’s denial of a new‑trial motion, holding that a trial judge’s personal observations of a juror’s attentiveness end the inquiry when adequately explained on the record, and that written copies of jury instructions do not cure a juror’s inattention during a consequential part of the trial. The Court also clarified that when the judge has not personally observed the juror, individual voir dire is required, and that corrective action must be taken if inattentiveness is found during a consequential phase. The Court rejected the defendant’s due‑process claim and found no waiver of the issue.