342 N.J. Super. 14 - State v. TE’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1)A preliminary showing must be made to establish a substantial need for the procedure. It must be demonstrated that without accompaniment, the child is likely to be substantially non-responsive, and that with accompaniment, the child is likely to provide meaningful, probative testimony. The court may consider the age of the witness, the nature of the testimony, evidence of fear, embarrassment or inability to testify, and the degree of trauma experienced by the witness in the underlying event and by the courtroom experience. (2) A defendant should be given the opportunity to suggest alternatives. [Examples Deleted]. (3) Choice of the support person should minimize potential prejudice. A parent or other close relative will more likely be viewed as family support than vouching for the witness’ credibility, as might result with a counselor, therapist or other professional. The advisability of identifying the status of a non-family support person should be considered. Whether the support person is also a witness in the trial should be considered; for example this might impact a sequestration order, and, depending upon the scope and extent of the support person’s testimony it might tend to unduly bolster the child’s testimony. A representative of the prosecutor’s office should not be used. (4) The logistics should be only as intrusive as necessary to accomplish the purpose of the procedure. Placing the support person in the front row of the gallery or at counsel table, for exampl”

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

2. “is without sufficient merit to require discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The trial judge's determination that the Division did not provide reasonable services to the parents is well-supported by credible evidence in the record. Without meeting this third prong, the Division was unable to prove its case. Affirmed. A reorganization of the Department of Children and Families under L. 2012, c. 16, effective June 29, 2012, changed the name of the Division of Youth and Family Services to the Division of Child Protection and Permanency. We use the term”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 454 N.J. Super. 353 - N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. T.D. (In re M.G.)

3. “The protection of children from undue trauma when testifying is an important public policy goal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Presley, Unpublished Decision (11-13-2003)