158 N.J. Super. 89 - State v. Mazur’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
2 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently March 2016
2 district · 18 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 Blasius v. United States · Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas · United States v. Joseph A. Chase, United States of America v. Robert H. Parrish, United States of America v. Wyatt J. Roy, Jr. · Sears v. United States · State v. Pontery
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Contrary to the trial judge's assertion, it is not necessary to show that there existed a prior arrangement between the prosecutor and the witness whereby the latter was to receive immunity from criminal prosecution, before his "`expectations for favorable treatment' may be shown as evidence of bias." [ State v. Mazur, 158 N.J. Super. 89, 94 , 385 A. 2d 878 (App.Div.) certif. denied, 78 N.J. 399 , 396 A. 2d 586 (1978).] The test of propriety of questions addressed to credibility is not necessarily whether there was an arrangement to grant the witness concessions. It is as relevant and significant for a defendant to demonstrate the state of mind of the witness based on his subjective reactions to the favorable treatment he may have received or may hope to receive in connection with his own criminal involvement. [ Id. at 94, 385 A. 2d 878 (quoting State v. Vaccaro, 142 N.J. Super. 167, 176 , 361 A. 2d 47 (App.Div.), certif. den. 71 N.J. 518 , 366 A. 2d 674 (1976)). (emphasis added).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“... [U]nder the proposed New Jersey Penal Code, § 2C:5-3a takes a “unilateral” approach to conspiracy prosecutions. As such, the proposed law focuses on the culpability of each party individually, regardless of the intentions or characteristics of the other parties. See 2 Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, Commentary (1971) at 181. However, a comparison of the conspiracy statute [2A:98-1], as presently written, with the statute as proposed, reveals that the two are markedly different. Therefore, the proposed Model Code cannot now be applied. [Id. at 101, emphasis supplied]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. La Forge“... [New Jersey] cases suggest that in New Jersey one may not be convicted of conspiracy where the “co-conspirator” is a police agent who never intended to enter a criminal agreement. In such circumstances, the feigning party is simply not conspiring to commit a crime. Such a rule prevails in the majority of jurisdictions which has considered the question. [Id. at 97-98; citations omitted]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. La Forge
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.