346 N.J. Super. 233 - State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(b) The court should not permit a defendant or witness to appear at trial in the distinctive attire of a prisoner, unless waived by defendant. (c) No defendant should be removed from the courtroom, nor should defendants and witnesses be subject to physical restraint while in court unless the court has found such restraint necessary to maintain order. (d) . . . Whenever physical restraint or removal of a defendant or witness occurs in the presence of jurors trying the case, the court should instruct those jurors that such restraint or removal is not to be considered in assessing the proof and determining guilt. [ Smith, supra, at 239-40 , 787 A. 2d 276 (quoting Control, Restraint or Removal of Defendants and Witnesses, A.B.A. Standards for Criminal Justice 15-3.2 (3d ed. 1996) (emphasis added in Smith ).)]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 384 N.J. Super. 586 - State v. Russell · People v. Knight

2. “The defendant shall be present at every stage of the trial, including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict, and at the imposition of sentence, unless otherwise provided by Rule. Nothing in this Rule, however, shall prevent a defendant from waiving the right to be present at trial. A waiver may be found either from (a) the defendant's express written or oral waiver placed on the record, or (b) the defendant's conduct evidencing a knowing, voluntary, and unjustified absence after (1) the defendant has received actual notice in court or has signed a written acknowledgment of the trial date, or (2) trial has commenced in defendant's presence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. W.A. · State v. WA

3. “We do not conclude that a defendant can never be deemed to have waived his right to be present at trial if he doesn’t respond to his attorney’s call. But if the trial date is to be flexible, and defendant is to “stand by” and respond to such a call so that he need not repeatedly come to court and receive notice there, that must be developed on the record with the defendant present. A defendant cannot be tried in absentia because he does not respond on short notice to a call from his attorney’s office to report prior to the date he was told to do so by the judge, unless such notice was itself developed on the record “in court.” ... Here, there was neither a personal direction by the court to the defendant to be present on the actual trial date nor acknowledgment by defendant on the record of a procedure whereby he would remain on call .... This is not a case where defendant could have been advised of an adjourned or rescheduled date when he arrived for trial on the noticed date, and the record does not indicate he was advised by the judge at a pretrial proceeding that he could be called back to court sooner than the date he had been given. “Adequate notice to the defendant is an essential element of a knowing wavier of the right to attend trial.””

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