197 N.J. Super. 451 - State v. Karlein’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]f the witness were allowed to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination at trial, the jury might infer that it was the witness who was involved in the criminal act, not the defendant. The probative value of this inference, as tending to prove the facts which resulted in the criminal indictment is diminutive, while the possibility of undue prejudice is significant. While in theory the witness who invokes the Fifth Amendment produces no evidence whatsoever, the practical result is that inferences might be drawn which create a substantial danger of undue prejudice to the State and mislead the jury into findings not based on legitimate evidence. Since the probative value of the inferences is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice and of misleading the jury, the evidence is likewise excludable pursuant to Evid.R. 4. [Id., 197 N.J.Super. at 457 , 484 A.2d 1355 ]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. McGraw

2. “To the extent that dicta in Cito suggests that a witness who had knowledge of relevant facts could be called by the defense in order for the witness to exercise his Fifth Amendment rights at trial, this court would not follow the dicta of the Cito opinion. [ 197 N.J.Super. at 455 n. 1]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 213 N.J. Super. 296 - State v. Cito

3. “[a] proper ruling in any particular case will generally depend on the precise attendant circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 208 N.J. Super. 224 - State v. Crews