245 N.J. Super. 99 - State v. Burnett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To the extent that ... Peterson ... can be read to hold, as the defendant here contends, that an acquittal on one count of an indictment precludes the finding beyond a reasonable doubt of a common element of the offense charged in another count of the same indictment and requires an acquittal on the latter count, we disagree. Instead, we adhere to the principles announced in Dunn and Powell which we are satisfied have been endorsed by our Supreme Court in [ State v. ] Ingenito, [ 87 N.J. 204 , 432 A. 2d 912 (1981)], [ State v. ] Crisantos, [ 102 N.J. 265 , 508 A. 2d 167 (1986)], and [ State v. ] Ragland, [ 105 N.J. 189 , 519 A. 2d 1361 (1986)]. [ Burnett, supra, 245 N.J. Super. at 112 , 584 A. 2d 268 .]”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Grey · State v. Ellis

2. “inconsistent verdicts ... should not necessarily be interpreted as a windfall to the Government at the defendant's expense. It is equally possible that the jury, convinced of guilt, properly reached its [guilty verdict] ... and then through mistake, compromise, or lenity, arrived at an inconsistent conclusion on [a different] offense. But in such situations the Government has no recourse if it wishes to correct the jury's error; the Government is precluded from appealing or otherwise upsetting such an acquittal by the Constitution's Double Jeopardy Clause. Inconsistent verdicts therefore present a situation where "error," in the sense that the jury has not followed the court's instructions, most certainly has occurred, but it is unclear whose ox has been gored. Given this uncertainty, and the fact that the Government is precluded from challenging the acquittal, it is hardly satisfactory to allow the defendant to receive a new trial on the conviction as a matter of course. [ Powell, supra, 469 U.S. at 65 , 105 S.Ct. at 476-477 , 83 L.Ed. 2d at 468-469 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).]”

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

3. “The responsibility of the jury in the domain of factual findings, and ultimate guilt or innocence, is so pronounced and preeminent that we accept inconsistent verdicts that accrue to the benefit of a defendant. Indeed, a jury has the prerogative of returning a verdict of innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt. It may also refuse to return a verdict in spite of the adequacy of the evidence. This is indicative of a belief that the jury in a criminal prosecution serves as the conscience of the community and the embodiment of the common sense and feelings reflective of society as a whole. [ Id. at 211-12, 432 A.2d 912 (citations omitted).]”

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