State v. Nesbitt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Trial courts are expected to perform a gatekeeper role in determining whether there exists a reasonable need for an expert's testimony, and what the parameters of that testimony may be.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 453 N.J. Super. 55 - State v. Stewart · 451 N.J. Super. 429 - State v. Hyman

2. “[a]n average juror will not know the meaning of code language used by drug distributors or the importance to be attached to the packaging, quantity, and quality of drugs. An expert could edify jurors concerning the customary use of scales and other drug paraphernalia by drug traffickers, as well as the methods used by drug dealers to ply their trade. In those instances, the specialized knowledge and training of the expert is of assistance to the jury in understanding the evidence before it. [ Nesbitt, supra, 185 N.J. at 521 , 888 A.2d 472 (Albin, J., dissenting) (citing Summers, supra, 176 N.J. at 322-23 , 823 A.2d 15 (Albin, J., dissenting)).]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 451 N.J. Super. 429 - State v. Hyman · State v. Reeds

3. “[a]dmission of expert testimony on drug possession and distribution techniques is permissible when reasonably required to assist jurors in understanding subjects that are beyond the ken of an average layperson.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 435 N.J. Super. 498 - State of New Jersey v. Kashif K. Patterson · 405 N.J. Super. 76 - State v. Thompson