310 N.J. Super. 128 - State v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We are in full accord with Judge Turnbach’s conclusion, for the reasons stated by him, that defendant, in these circumstances, will be substantially and irremediably prejudiced by proceeding on the penalty phase with a new jury. We are in full accord with the judge’s conclusion that irrespective of any evil intent, the Prosecutor’s conduct that placed defendant in his present predicament constituted an egregious, intentional and intolerable breach of the inviolability of the secrecy of jury deliberations. And we are in full accord with the judge’s conclusion that the doctrine of fundamental fairness demands the remedy of preclusion. There is no effective alternative measure or lesser sanction available here. We appreciate that there is a countervailing interest of the public that criminal prosecutions not be thwarted and that wrongdoers be brought to account. We are satisfied, however, that that interest has been fully satisfied here by the unaffected return of the first-degree murder verdicts. [Id. at 139, 708 A.2d 429 .]”

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

2. “It was all there in black and white after a jury convicted Scott Baker of murdering Beatrice Baskin. The jurors made a list, with two columns on it. They left it in the jury room. They wrote down many reasons for convicting Baker, 25, of stabbing the 75-year-old Brick Township woman to death while robbing her. High on the list was testimony of Scott Barnes, 25, formerly of Manchester Township, who said he drove Baker to Baskin’s house so he could rob her the night she was killed. And they wrote down two reasons for acquitting him: Erie Lewis, the ineffective state’s witness, and the lack of physical evidence linking Baker to the killing. [ 310 N.J.Super. at 131 , 708 A.2d 429 .]”

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

3. “This is a death penalty case and calls for enhanced scrutiny and vigilance considering that the State, as representative of the people, is seeking not to imprison the defendant, but to humanely extinguish his life. The admonition of Justice Story, in the early double jeopardy decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Perez, [ 9 Wheat. 579 ], 22 U.S. 579 [ 6 L.Ed. 165 ] (1824) at page 580, bears due consideration: “in capital cases especially, Courts should be extremely careful how they interfere with any of the chances of life, in favor of the prisoner.” [/d at 134, 708 A.2d 429 .]”

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