State v. DiFrisco’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The essential feature of this disorder is a pattern of irresponsible or antisocial behavior beginning in childhood or early adolescence and continuing into adulthood. For this diagnosis to be given, the person must be at least 18 years of age and have a history of Conduct Disorder before the age of 15. Lying, stealing, truancy, vandalism, initiating fights, running away from home, and physical cruelly are typical childhood signs. In adulthood the antisocial pattern continues, and may include failure to honor financial obligations, to function as a responsible parent or to plan ahead, and an inability to sustain consistent work behavior. These people fail to conform to social norms and repeatedly perform antisocial acts that are grounds for arrest, such as destroying property, harassing others, stealing, and having an illegal occupation. People with Antisocial Personality Disorder tend to be irritable and aggressive and to get repeatedly into fights and physical assaults, including spouse- or child-beating. Reckless behavior without regard to personal safety is common, as indicated by frequently driving while intoxicated or getting speeding tickets. Typically, these people are promiscuous (defined as never having sustained a monogamous relationship for more than a year). Finally, they generally have no remorse [about] the effects of their behavior on others; they may even feel justified in having hurt or mistreated others. After age 30, the more flagrantly antisocial behavior ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Luteyn v. Commissioner of Social Security

2. ““Ordinarily, the necessity for and admissibility of expert testimony are matters to be determined within the sound exercise of discretion by the trial court.” State v. Berry, 140 N.J. 280, 293 [ 658 A.2d 702 ] (1995) (citation omitted). Generally, a trial court will admit expert testimony if the subject matter at issue, or its specific application, is one with which an average fact finder might not be sufficiently familiar, or if the trial court determines that the expert testimony would assist it in understanding the evidence and determining facts in issue. [Supra, 174 N.J. at 237, 804 A.2d 507 (parallel citations omitted).]”

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

3. “Capital defendants are guaranteed competent capital counsel. Obviously the measure of an advocate’s competency depends on the task to be accomplished. The best intentions and the most devoted of efforts do not necessarily equate with capital competence. We expect capital defense counsel to have an expertise regarding the special considerations present in capital cases. The Strickland/Fritz standard demands no less. [Id. at 356, 561 A.2d 1082 .]”

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