State Supreme Court.JPG

The New Jersey Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Trenton last year.

(Patti Sapone | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com)

TRENTON — Judges in New Jersey are barred from speaking with jurors after a verdict has been issued, except in certain circumstances, the state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The prohibition was part of the high court's unanimous 7-0 decision in a sexual harassment case in which a juror told the judge after the verdict that the defendant did not touch the bible while taking the oath before testifying.

Still, the court stopped short of awarding a new trial in the lawsuit filed by Tomikia Davis against her former employer, Camden County doctor Abbas Husain, saying there wasn't enough information to decide whether the verdict was tainted by religious bias.

Instead, the court called for a new judge to consider whether the juror's comment warranted a new trial or to let the verdict remain in favor of Tomikia Davis, who was awarded $12,500 in damages and $68,000 in attorney fees in the 2011 decision.

Justice Jaynee LaVecchia wrote that judges have previously been discouraged from conversing with discharged jurors, but this ruling is designed to "bring an end to such practices."

She added that judges are allowed to break the ban only with "good cause to do so" and then only in the presence of an attorney, under state judiciary rules.

"'Off the record' conversation between the judge and jury is incompatible with our entire system of open and public court proceedings, in which parties’ interests are protected through their presence and that of their counsel," LaVecchia wrote.

Davis sued Husain in Superior Court in Camden County in 2007, accusing him of making making sexually inappropriate comments and gestures at work, according to court papers.

After the jury ruled against Husain, Superior Court Judge Stephen Holden spoke with jurors off the record and without attorneys present, the papers say. A juror told the judge that Husain — who is of Indian descent — did not touch the bible while being sworn in to testify, the documents say. The judge then notified attorneys, according to the papers.

Husain said he did not touch the bible for cultural reasons and appealed the ruling, asking for a new trial.

A state appeals court admonished the judge in 2013 but said a new trial was not warranted because there was "no manifest injustice" in the juror's comment, the papers say.

Husain appealed to the Supreme Court. His attorney, Lynda Yamamoto of Cherry Hill, said in oral arguments before the high court in September that the trial took place in late 2011, just after the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. That, she said, may have cause the jury to discriminate against Husain.

In its ruling Tuesday, the court said the record of the comment is "unacceptably sparse" because the judge didn't question the juror in public.

"The way to properly handle such an inquiry depends on the individual juror’s credibility," LaVecchia wrote. "It also depends on the juror’s answers to questions about the comment, what the juror may have said to other jurors, and what those jurors themselves might have expressed about the administration of the oath to Husain. However, all that is contained in the present record is the judge’s comments during colloquy with counsel as part of the post-verdict motion practice."

Thus, the court called for a hearing in which a new judge will consider the importance of the juror's comment, whether prejudice occurred, and a new trial should be held.

"The Court finds the current status of this matter troubling, given the amount of time that has passed since trial, the size of the verdict, and the fact that the problematic posture of this matter would have been avoided by seeking relief under (judiciary rules) by way of a motion for a new trial, timely filed when the trial had more recently occurred," LaVecchia wrote. "Therefore, the Court declines to presume that prejudice occurred."

Davis' attorney, Deborah Mains of Mount Laurel, said she was "satisfied with the way the (Supreme Court) handled" the case.

Yamamoto, Husain's attorney, said the decision was "provocative" and will "set a new standard for judges' conduct."

MORE POLITICS

Brent Johnson may be reached at bjohnson@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @johnsb01. Find NJ.com Politics on Facebook.