State v. Goodwin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 27 state decisions

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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Post-conviction relief is New Jersey's analogue to the federal writ of habeas corpus.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State of New Jersey v. Edward Holland · 457 N.J. Super. 1 - State v. Bass

2. “There are good reasons for [Rule 3:22-12]. As time passes after conviction, the difficulties associated with a fail- and accurate reassessment of the critical events multiply. Achieving “justice” years after the fact may be more an illusory temptation than a plausibly attainable goal when memories have dimmed, witnesses have died or disappeared, and evidence is lost or unattainable. Those difficulties have not gone unnoticed by our courts. See, e.g., State v. Dillard, 208 N.J.Super. 722, 727 , 506 A.2d 848 (App.Div.) (“with the passage of time it may become more difficult to rule upon the allegations in a petition for post-conviction relief----”), certif. denied, 105 N.J. 527 , 523 A.2d 169 (1986); State v. Marshall, 244 N.J.Super. 60, 69 , 581 A.2d 538 (Law Div.1990) (faced with the potential prospect of evaluating the constitutionality of a twenty-two-year-old conviction, “it would be a practical impossibility ... to conduct a proper hearing”). Moreover, the [Rule ] selves to respect the need for achieving finality of judgments and to allay the uncertainty associated with an unlimited possibility of relitigation. The [Rule] therefore strongly encourages those believing they have grounds for post-conviction relief to bring their claims swiftly, and discourages them from sitting on their rights until it is too late for a court to render justice. [State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565, 575-76 , 601 A.2d 198 (1992).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Milne

3. “(a) Substantial denial in the conviction proceedings of defendant's rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of the State of New Jersey; (b) Lack of jurisdiction of the court to impose the judgment rendered upon defendant's conviction; (c) Imposition of sentence in excess of or otherwise not in accordance with the sentence authorized by law if raised together with other grounds cognizable under paragraph (a), (b), or (d) of this rule. Otherwise a claim alleging the imposition of sentence in excess of or otherwise not in accordance with the sentence authorized by law shall be filed pursuant to [ Rule ] 3:21-10(b)(5). (d) Any ground heretofore available as a basis for collateral attack upon a conviction by habeas corpus or any other common-law or statutory remedy. [ R. 3:22-2.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 457 N.J. Super. 1 - State v. Bass