87 N.J. Super. 98 - State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If a person in any state, which by its laws has made provision for commanding persons within its borders to attend and testify in criminal prosecutions, or grand jury investigations commenced or about to commence, in this state, is a material witness in a prosecution pending in a court of record in this state, or in a grand jury investigation which has commenced or is about to commence, a judge of such court may issue a certificate under the seal of the court stating these facts and specifying the number of days the witness will be required. This certificate shall be presented to a judge of a court of record in the county in which the witness is found.” (Emphasis added.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Wimbish · State v. Brady

2. ““ * * * does provide a statutory means whereby a witness from another state i can be compelled to attend and testify at a criminal trial in our. State. The remedy is equally available to the State and defendant, (citations omitted) * * “To obtain the relief provided for * * defendant had the burden of establishing that Sabol was a ‘material witness’. This required, at the preliminary hearing upon his application, a showing that not only would Sabol testify favorably in his behalf, but also that such testimony would be material to his defense. * * * ” State v. Smith, 87 N.J.Super. 98 , 208 A.2d 171, 174 (1965).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 7 Ariz. App. 269 - State v. Mance

3. “Inasmuch as a state's process cannot extend beyond its borders, and, thus, the state cannot as a matter of right compel the attendance of a witness beyond its borders but can only procure such witnesses by the voluntary cooperation of another state, clearly the accused must be able to designate the witness and his location with exactitude before any duty devolves on the court to initiate the complex judicial process necessary under these acts to procure the attendance of out-of-state witnesses.”

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