State v. Maddocks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) was not premised upon a consideration of all relevant factors, (b) was based upon a consideration of irrelevant or inappropriate factors, or (c) amounted to a clear error in judgment. [ 80 N. J. at 93]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of New Jersey v. James Denman · State v. Sutton

2. “[The PTI] decision lies, in the first instance, with the prosecutor, and once he has determined that he will not consent to the diversion of a particular defendant, his decision is to be afforded great deference. In fact, the level of deference which is required is so high that it has been categorized as “enhanced deference” or “extra deference.” Beyond this, it has been expressly noted that the scope of any review in this area is to be “severely limited.” * * * Thus, judicial review, in actuality, exists “to check only the most egregious examples of injustice and unfairness.” The reason for this elevated standard of review stems from “[t]he need to preserve prosecutorial discretion in deciding whether to divert a particular defendant from the ordinary criminal process.... ” Prosecutorial discretion in this context is critical for two reasons. First, because it is the fundamental responsibility of the prosecutor to decide whom to prosecute, and second, because it is a primary purpose of PTI to augment, not diminish, a prosecutor’s options. The extreme deference which a prosecutor’s decision is entitled to in this context translates into a heavy burden which must be borne by a defendant when seeking to overcome a prosecutorial veto of his admission into PTI. Specifically, “a defendant must ‘clearly and convincingly establish that the prosecutor’s refusal to sanction admission into [a PTI] program was based on a patent and gross abuse of his discretion’ before a court [can] sus”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Nwobu

3. “Consequently, on 6 A-5329-14T1 such matters an appellate court is free to substitute its independent judgment for that of the trial court or the prosecutor should it deem either to have been in error.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of New Jersey v. James Denman