The core of new Jerseys expungement statute is to provide a new lease-on-life to one-time offenders who have disassociated themselves with criminal activity. Last month, the Supreme Court analyzed the influence of an expungement statute in the context of a defamation action where the defendants asserted the “truth defense".

Factually, the controversy had its roots in a political brouhaha in Hudson County, where a Democratic organization published a statement that said, in essence, that one of the people coordinating a politician’s election campaign was a "drug dealer who went to jail for five years selling coke near a public school." When the person subject of the publication filed a lawsuit against the organization and others, the defense was that the plaintiff was actually convicted in 1992 of a second degree, possession with intent to distribute drugs and received a five-year term of imprisonment. The plaintiff countered by claiming that he had earlier received an expungement and that as a result the truth defense was not available to defendants.

The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff's contention. The core of its decision was grounded upon the importance of free speech, especially in the rough-and-tumble business of politics. It also noted that the expungement statute did not allow for "the wholesale rewriting of history", and specifically noted that the expungement statute has many exceptions to its rule of non-disclosure, including where applicants seek jobs with the judiciary and law enforcement agencies.