175 N.J. Super. 72 - State v. Khan’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Treece v. State (1988), Commonwealth v. Federici (1998)
39 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 Faretta v. California · North Carolina v. Alford · Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Northeast Airlines, Inc. · Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America v. Harrington · Lyles v. United States
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“be able to knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive those rights which are waived upon such entry of a guilty plea.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“capab[ility] of rationally deciding to reject the defense.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if the [insanity] defense is to be interposed despite defendant's objection, then presenting the defenses of self-defense and insanity at a single trial, with separate counsel as to each, as was directed in the order under review, could result in a fundamentally unfair situation for defendant. One attorney representing defendant would argue that he acted in self-defense, while the other would seek to establish at the same time that the attack never occurred but was a delusion on the part of defendant. Cf. United States v. Taylor, 510 F. 2d 1283, 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1975). See, also, Contee v. United States, 410 F. 2d 249, 250 (D.C. Cir.1969); Holmes v. United States, 363 F. 2d 281 (D.C. Cir. [1966] 1977). In the unique circumstances here present, we think that the issues must be bifurcated at the trial, with the insanity issue to be tried first, particularly since it would have been, in fact, interposed by the trial judge. At the close of the proofs on that issue, it will be submitted to the jury, with appropriate instructions, for a determination of whether defendant was insane at the time the homicide was committed. If the jury finds that he was, then the trial judge would direct the entry of a judgment of acquittal on the ground of insanity and dispose of the case as provided for under N.J.S.A. 2C:4-7. If the jury finds that defendant was not insane at the time the homicide was committed, then the trial would proceed on the general issue of defendant's guilt or innocence of th”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.