310 N.J. Super. 348 - State v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The law is well-settled that actual prejudice, not possible or presumed prejudice, is required to support a due process claim." State v. Aguirre, supra, 287 N.J.Super. at 133 , 670 A. 2d 583 . "[T]he defendant must show `the delay caused "actual and substantial prejudice'" endangering his right to a fair trial and `must present concrete evidence showing material harm.'" Id. at 134, 670 A. 2d 583 (quoting United States v. Anagnostou, 974 F. 2d 939, 941-42 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1050 , 113 S.Ct. 1943 , 123 L.Ed. 2d 649 (1993)). "Vague assertions of lost witnesses, faded memories, or misplaced documents are insufficient to establish a due process violation from pre-indictment delay." United States v. Beszborn, 21 F. 3d 62, 67 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 934 , 115 S.Ct. 330 , 130 L.Ed. 2d 288 (1994). "A mere loss of potential witnesses is insufficient absent a showing that their testimony `would have actually aided the defense.'" [ United States v. Crouch, 84 F. 3d 1497, 1515 (5th Cir.1996) (en banc), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1076 , 117 S.Ct. 736 , 136 L.Ed. 2d 676 (1997)] (quoting Beszborn, supra, 21 F. 3d at 66 ). In fact, one federal circuit court has noted that "[t]he task of establishing the requisite prejudice for a possible due process violation is `so heavy' that we have found only two cases since 1975 in which any circuit has upheld a due process claim [based on pre-indictment delay]." United States v. Huntley, 976 F. 2d 1287, 1290 (9th Cir.1992) (c”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 374 N.J. Super. 25 - State v. Townsend

2. “product of intentional governmental action to gain some tactical advantage over the accused or for some other impermissible, bad faith purpose.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 374 N.J. Super. 25 - State v. Townsend

3. “both that (1) there was no legitimate reason for the delay and (2) [defendant] was prejudiced thereby.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 374 N.J. Super. 25 - State v. Townsend