N.J. Model Criminal Jury Charge, N.J.S.A. Non 2C

Revised 6/6/16

CREDIBILITY - IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF TESTIMONY1

You have heard evidence that [name(s) of witness(es)] who testified for the State [is/are]

[a] foreign national(s) who [is/are] not [a] legal resident(s) of the United States and, therefore,

subject to removal from this country.

(CHOOSE IF APPROPRIATE)

You have also heard evidence that [witness(es) may [have applied for] [be interested in]

[be aware of] programs that could prevent removal if the State informs federal immigra tion

authorities that [he/she/they] [was/were] a victim of a crime.2 This evidence may be used by you

in assessing the credibility or believability of [name of witness(es)] testimony. However, [names

of witness(es)] [application for] [knowledge of] [interest in] [awareness of] such a program may

be used only to the extent you determine that it has biased [name of witness(es)] in favor of the

State, that is to say, if you believe that [name of witness(es)] testified as [he/she/they] did because

of the potential threat of removal, and b ecause [he/she/they] hoped that [his /her/their] testimony

would help [him/ her/them] to avoid removal from this country.

(In all cases)

You may not use the mere fact that [name of witness(es)] may not be a legal resident of

the United States to conclude th at [he/she/they] [is/are] less likely to comply with our society’s

rules and, therefore, more likely to ignore the oath requiring truthfulness on the witness stand.

Indeed, that [name of witness(es)] may be here in violation of federal immigration laws do es not,

in and of itself, affect [his /her/their] credibility. 3 Rather, the focus must be on whether the

possibility that the State can help [name of witness(es)] delay or avoid removal from the United

States improperly influenced [his/her/their] testimony.

1 Before this charge is given, the Court should first determine in a hearing outside of the

presence of the jury that the probative value of disclosing the immigration status of a witness

outweighs the likely prejudice to that witness from that disclosure so that defendant’s right to a

fair trial by confronting that witness must prevail. N.J.R.E. 104, 403, and 404(b). See also

Serrano v. Underground Utils. Corporation, 407 N.J. Super. 253, 273 (App. Div. 2009).

2 The U Visa program is an immigration benefit for victims of certain crimes under the

Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act (VTUPA) of 2000. Pub. L. No. 106-386.

3 See Serrano v. Underground Utils. Corporation, 407 N.J. Super. 253, 274 (App. Div.

2009) (a witness’ immigration status “is very likely to trigger negative sentiments in the minds of

some jurors”).

CREDIBILITY – IMMIGRATION

CONSEQUENCES OF TESTIMONY

In weighing this witness(es)’s testimony you may consider whether [his /her/their]

testimony was influenced by the hope or expectation for any favorable treatment or reward such

as delaying or avoiding removal from the United States by federal immigration authorities.

Finally, you are not obligated to consider the [name of witness(es)] interest in avoiding or

delaying removal from this country as having any particular effect on [his/her/their] credibility.

You may, however, consider this evidence, in ligh t of my instructions, along with all the other

factors we previously discussed in determining the credibility of [name of witness(es)].

If you believe [this /these] witness(es) to be credible and worthy of belief, you have a

right to convict the defendant o n [his/her/their] testimony alone, provided of course, that upon

consideration of the whole case, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s

guilt.