State v. Angeleri’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably De Vita v. Sills (1970), 41 Wis. 2d 129 - State Ex Rel. Simos v. Burke (1968)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 29 state decisions
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 In re Whittington · Bottone v. United States · Jones v. Superior Court · Gray v. United States · 124 Ohio St. 1 - State v. Thayer
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f an alibi should tend to incriminate an accused, it must be because of its inherent infirmity. The Constitution does not protect a defendant from the consequences of a defense he makes, nor assure him a right so to defend as to deny the State a chance to check the truth of his position. [ Id. at 434 , 555 A. 2d 575 (quoting State v. Angeleri, 51 N.J. 382, 385 , 241 A. 2d 3 (1968)).]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Alibi. If a defendant intends to rely in any way on an alibi, within 10 days after a written demand by the prosecutor the defendant shall furnish a signed alibi, stating the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom the defendant intends to rely to establish such alibi. Within 10 days after receipt of such alibi, the prosecutor shall, on written demand, furnish the defendant or defendant’s attorney with the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom the State intends to rely to establish defendant’s presence at the scene of the alleged offense. The trial court may order such amendment or amplification as the interest of justice requires. (b) Failure to Furnish. If the information required in paragraph (a) is not furnished, the court may refuse to allow the party in default to present witnesses at trial as to defendant’s absence from or presence at the scene of the alleged offense, or make such other order or grant such adjournment, or delay during trial, as the interest of justice requires. [it 3:12-2 (emphasis added).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bradshaw
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.