State v. Brunson’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 100 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably State v. Scherzer (1997), State v. Harris (2004)
2 federal appellate · 100 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · Carter v. Kentucky · Graves v. United States · Johnson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. · State v. Santiago
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[flor the purpose of affecting the credibility of any witness, the witness’ conviction of a crime shall be admitted unless excluded by the judge as remote or for other causes.” Once the trial court determines that a prior conviction is admissible under N.J.R.E. 609, the trial court must then determine whether it is presented with a "case[ ] in which a testifying defendant previously has been convicted of a crime that is the same or similar to the offense charged[.]”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Dean v. State · State v. L.J.P.“in reasonable probability that the evidence has not been changed in important respects or is in substantially the same condition as when the crime was committed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“A party introducing tangible evidence has the burden of laying a proper foundation for its admission.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.