State v. Begyn’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 4 district · 117 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 144 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2014 · most notably Evans v. United States (1992), State v. Wolery (1976)
15 federal appellate · 4 district · 117 state decisions — followed in 12 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on State v. Weleck · State v. Winne · State v. Orecchio · Reilly v. Ozzard · State v. Carbone
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 144 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * [S]ince the witnesses could not be guilty unless defendant too was guilty of the offense for which he was on trial, an instruction characterizing the witnesses as guilty of crime had to carry the implication that by the same token defendant too was guilty. To state it in other terms, defendant's requests to charge involved a paradox, to wit, that the jury was asked to view cautiously the testimony of the witnesses upon a premise which simultaneously imported defendant's guilt, and this because the witnesses could not be guilty unless defendant too was guilty. It would be quite a feat for a jury both (1) to discredit the witnesses because they believed their incriminating testimony and (2) thereupon to acquit the defendant by disbelieving the very testimony they had already accepted as the truth. * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““The underlying basis of the various [common law] crimes of official misconduct is the breach of a duty of public concern by one who by virtue of his position — whatever it might be called — is in some way entrusted with the public welfare. So the definition of ‘officer’ with respect to any such crime must be so broad that no public employee can claim to be outside its circumscription so long as the alleged misconduct is at all related to his official duties and obligations, express or inherent.” State v. Begyn, 33 N.J. 35 , 167 A.2d 161, 165 (1961). 7”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Misconduct in office is corrupt misbehavior by an officer in the exercise of the duties of his office or while acting under the color of his office.” (at p. 49)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.