State v. Kunz’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably State v. Roth (1984), State v. Leonardis (1977)
22 federal appellate · 75 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Gideon v. Wainwright · Gault · Pointer v. Texas · Williams v. People of State of New York
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The ability of trained judges to exclude from their consideration irrelevant or improper evidence and materials which have come to their attention and to so certify for appellate purposes, has been recognized throughout our law. We have no reason to doubt that it may properly be applied in the field of sentencing. The sentencing hearing, as we have outlined it, will fairly protect the rights of the defendant as well as the State and, conducted in commonsensible and flexible fashion, will not entail any undue delays or undue burdens on the judicial system. The probation report, when accurate and adequate, will as a practical matter generally remain unchallenged. Even where it is challenged, inquiry may quickly disclose that the challenge relates to matter of insufficient importance to warrant the taking of proof and, in such event, the trial judge may disregard the challenged matter and so declare. It is only in the occasional instance where the challenged matter is crucial to the sentencing process that any further step will be called for but, clearly, here the risk of injustice is far too great to proceed without proof. There may be additional incidental procedural questions but they can readily be dealt with as they arise from time to time. [ Kunz, 55 N.J. at 145-6 .]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“`with fair opportunity to be heard on any adverse matters relevant to the sentencing'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“It is indeed difficult to see how there can be meaningful representation by counsel at sentencing time when there is on disclosure to him of the presentence materials on which the sentence is being based. And surely without such materials he is in no fair position to determine whether an appeal should be taken from the sentence or how to prosecute it if it is taken... . See Rubin, " Sentences Must Be Rationally Explained " 42 F.R.D. 203 , 217 (1968): Certainly if the defendant has the right to have an appellate court pass on the validity of his sentence and, in so doing, consider the presentence investigation on which the sentence was based, how can this process operate intelligently unless the defendant knows enough about the report to challenge it where necessary and unless the court has the report in front of it? Certainly if the defendant can raise issues about the report, he has a right to examine it to see whether it is legally adequate in his case. [ 55 N.J. at 138 , 259 A.2d at 900 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Lipsky
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.