403 N.J. Super. 39 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a. Any and all documents relating or pertaining to “a racial epithet to describe” defendant uttered by the “superior officer” of the Hunterdon County Prosecutor’s Office, including but not limited to all documents contained in an investigatory or disciplinary file; and b. The complete personnel file of the “superior officer” within the Hunterdon County Prosecutor’s Office, as well as any and all documents pertaining to his employment by the Hunterdon County Prosecutor’s Office; and c. All notes and documents relating in any way to the issues discussed during the “meeting within the office” of the Hunterdon County Prosecutor at which the “superior officer” used “a racial epithet to describe” defendant;”

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

2. “if any of the testifying officers were present when the racial epithet and other racial remarks were uttered, defendant is entitled to know that and to make further inquiry as to how they reacted or responded to the “superior officer’s” remarks. Irrespective of whether the “senior officer” testified at the first trial or will testify at the coming trial, the question here is whether his comments were accepted or tolerated by others present to the extent that those comments may have reflected attitudes of others present at the briefing who may have testified at the first trial and/or will testify at the retrial.”

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