65 N.J. Super. 421 - State v. Buffa’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 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. ““The courts are always open, as they should be, to defendants who have been dealt with unfairly. We are and must remain sensitive to claims that have any show of merit. But we should not be blind to claims that have no substance whatever, conceived in prison leisure, and —as is quite evident to us from a consideration of more than 100 applications in the recent past — composed with the help of what appears to be a small corps of ‘prison lawyers,’ who have law books, the latest decisions of our appellate courts and other courts, typewriters, legal paper, and all that is necessary for producing a constant flow of applications, supporting papers and briefs. “Defendant’s claim of having been without the help of competent counsel at the time of trial and sentence is one that by now has a rubber-stamp familiarity.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 274 N.J. Super. 15 - State v. Green · State v. Lewis

2. ““The present claim that the indictment was defective is based on the contention that there was an illegal joinder or consolidation of two separate and distinct statutory violations within the one count of the indictment, namely, robbery . . . and being an armed criminal. . . “As this court had occasion to say again only a few weeks ago, it is well settled that an indictment like the one here under consideration does not allege two separate crimes, but a single crime (robbery . . .) under circumstances which permit greater punishment for that crime ... “The sentences imposed by the court, being well within the maxima allowed under the respective two statutes, were proper. Any suggestion that defendant has been subjected to double jeopardy is without validity. He was punished for only one crime, robbery, for which he received an enhanced punishment because he used a revolver. That a statutory provision for the imposition of a greater sentence because of particular circumstances — in this case, being armed while committing robbery— is constitutionally proper, is too well settled to require discussion.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Woofter v. O'DONNELL