State v. Salasky
In State v. Salasky, 2013 WL 5487363, (Del. Super. Sept. 26, 2013) the Superior Court explicitly held that a defendant cannot request "disclosure of the full criminal histories of all potential jurors," and such denial does not constitute a due process or an equal protection violation.
This determination was made by the Court after the defense requested the DELJIS files for jurors during the jury selection process in order to have equal footing with the State.
The Court in Salasky discussed 11 Del. C. 8513 and the McBride v. State decision, and determined that while there exists no due process violation in failing to provide the defense with access to DELJIS reports, the Court should engage in other procedures to "ensure a fair trial and balance the due process concerns expressed in the McBride decision."
The Court outlined the following procedure; "(1) Each juror will be provided a questionnaire to complete prior to the voir dire. One of the questions that they will be asked is whether they have ever been arrested or convicted of a criminal offense other than a traffic violation. (2) If the juror answers yes to this question, they will be asked to list the nature of the arrest and/or conviction and the year(s) that such occurred. (3) If the information provided by the juror is inconsistent with the information contained on the DELJIS criminal history, the State will be required to disclose that information to the Court and defense counsel, so a proper inquiry can be conducted to ensure the juror can be impartial and is not intentionally concealing information relevant to their qualifications to serve as a juror."
The Court in Salasky made clear, however, that a defendant's due process rights would be violated if the State fails to disclose information "relating to a juror's ability to render an impartial verdict."
Such a situation would occur if a juror failed to reveal, on a questionnaire or during voir dire questioning, information that is contained on the individual's DELJIS history.
The Court wanted to make certain that in such situations, the parties would have the opportunity to conduct an inquiry into the impartiality of the juror.