criminal proceeding error in New Jersey

2025Ultimately, "[a]n error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691 .

2025Ultimately, "[a]n error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment." Id. at 691 .

2020This prong "is an exacting standard" and "'[t]he error committed must be so serious as to undermine the court's confidence in the jury's verdict or the result reached.'" State v. Allegro, 193 N.J. 352, 367 (2008) (alteration in original) (quoting Castagna, 187 N.J. at 315 ).

2020This prong "is an exacting standard" and "'[t]he error committed must be so serious as to undermine the court's confidence in the jury's verdict or the result reach ed.'" State v. Allegro, 193 N.J. 352, 367 (2008) (alteration in original) (quoting Castagna, 187 N.J. at 315 ).

2025"Important to the prejudice analysis is the strength of the evidence that was before the fact -finder at trial." Pierre, 223 N.J. at 583 .

2019"In Crawford v. Washington, [ 541 U.S. 36 (2004)], the United States Supreme Court declared that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause prohibited the use of an out-of-court testimonial statement against a criminal defendant unless the witness was unavailable and the defendant was given a prior opportunity to cross-examine her." Basil, 202 N.J. at 591 .

2019"In Crawford v. Washington, [ 541 U.S. 36 (2004)], the United States Supreme Court declared that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause prohibited the use of an out-of-court testimonial statement against a criminal defendant unless the witness was unavailable and the defendant was given a prior opportunity to cross-examine her." Basil, 202 N.J. at 591 .

2016But the error here did not lead “to a judicial proceeding of disputed reliability”; it led to a “forfeiture of the proceeding itself.” Flores-Ortega, supra, 528 U.S. at 483 , 120 S.Ct. at 1038 , 145 L.Ed.2d at 999 .

2016But the error here did not lead “to a judicial proceeding of disputed reliability”; it led to a “forfeiture of the proceeding itself.” Flores-Ortega, supra, 528 U.S. at 483 , 120 S.Ct. at 1038 , 145 L.Ed.2d at 999 .

1952Even though in a criminal proceeding the rule is that the extent of a defendant's cross-examination is not strictly limited to matters brought out on direct examination, but within the bounds of pertinency rests entirely in judicial discretion, State v. Grover, 104 N.J.L. 10 , ( Sup. Ct. 1927); here the cross-examination was in general upon matters previously introduced.