State v. Frost’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
117 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably State v. Koskovich (2001), State v. Daniels (2004)
117 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 Berger v. United States · Newland v. Georgia · Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. United States · State v. Ramseur · State v. MacOn
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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether defense counsel made timely and proper objections to the improper remarks; (2) whether the remarks were withdrawn promptly; and (3) whether the court ordered the remarks stricken from the record and instructed the jury to disregard them.”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“could never be a justifiable basis for depriving a defendant of his or her entitlement to a constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial. The impact of violating a defendant's right to a fair trial cannot be measured by or weighed against, the quantum of evidence bearing upon his or her guilt.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““because the prosecutor represents the government and people of the State, it is reasonable to say that jurors have confidence that he will fairly fulfill his duty to see that justice is done whether by conviction of the guilty or acquittal of the innocent.” His comments during opening and closing carry the full authority of the State. Hence, we cannot sit idly by and condone prosecutorial excesses. [ Frost, supra, 158 N.J. at 87 , 727 A.2d 1 (quoting State v. Spano, 64 N.J. 566, 568 , 319 A.2d 217 (1974)).]”
2 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.