11 New Jersey opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2026 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Arthurgreen2 sentences2026However, a defendant may rebut the presumption of effectiveness by proving trial counsel's actions were not "sound trial strategy." State v. Arthur, 184 N.J. 307, 319 (2005) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 ). 2025A defendant may rebut the presumption A-0026-23 15 of effectiveness by proving trial counsel's actions were not "sound trial strategy." Arthur, 184 N.J. at 319 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 ). | 1 | 8 |
State v. William Roseman and Lori Lewin (073674)green1 sentence2017"A defendant may rebut the presumption by 'showing compelling reasons justifying the applicant's admission and establishing that a decision against enrollment would be arbitrary and unreasonable.'" Ibid. (quoting Guideline 3(i)). "'[A] defendant must demonstrate something extraordinary or unusual,' not merely 'that the accused is a first-time offender and has admitted or accepted responsibility for the crime.'" Ibid. (quoting Nwobu, 6 A-3305-15T4 supra, 139 N.J. at 252 ). "[T]his is a fact-sensitive analysis that requires consideration of 'idiosyncratic' circumstances demonstrating that denial | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2026However, a defendant may rebut the presumption of effectiveness by proving trial counsel's actions were not "sound trial strategy." State v. Arthur, 184 N.J. 307, 319 (2005) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 ). 2025A defendant may rebut the presumption A-0026-23 15 of effectiveness by proving trial counsel's actions were not "sound trial strategy." Arthur, 184 N.J. at 319 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 ). | 8 | 2024–2026 |
State v. Nwobu
green
2 sentences2017"A defendant may rebut the presumption by 'showing compelling reasons justifying the applicant's admission and establishing that a decision against enrollment would be arbitrary and unreasonable.'" Ibid. (quoting Guideline 3(i)). "'[A] defendant must demonstrate something extraordinary or unusual,' not merely 'that the accused is a first-time offender and has admitted or accepted responsibility for the crime.'" Ibid. (quoting Nwobu, 6 A-3305-15T4 supra, 139 N.J. at 252 ). "[T]his is a fact-sensitive analysis that requires consideration of 'idiosyncratic' circumstances demonstrating that denial 2017"A defendant may rebut the presumption by 'showing compelling reasons justifying the applicant's admission and establishing that a decision against enrollment would be arbitrary and unreasonable.'" Ibid. (quoting Guideline 3(i)). "'[A] defendant must demonstrate something extraordinary or unusual,' not merely 'that the accused is a first-time offender and has admitted or accepted responsibility for the crime.'" Ibid. (quoting Nwobu, 6 A-3305-15T4 supra, 139 N.J. at 252 ). "[T]his is a fact-sensitive analysis that requires consideration of 'idiosyncratic' circumstances demonstrating that denial | 2 | 2015–2017 |
State v. Caliguiri
green
2 sentences2017"A defendant may rebut the presumption by 'showing compelling reasons justifying the applicant's admission and establishing that a decision against enrollment would be arbitrary and unreasonable.'" Ibid. (quoting Guideline 3(i)). "'[A] defendant must demonstrate something extraordinary or unusual,' not merely 'that the accused is a first-time offender and has admitted or accepted responsibility for the crime.'" Ibid. (quoting Nwobu, 6 A-3305-15T4 supra, 139 N.J. at 252 ). "[T]his is a fact-sensitive analysis that requires consideration of 'idiosyncratic' circumstances demonstrating that denial 2017"A defendant may rebut the presumption by 'showing compelling reasons justifying the applicant's admission and establishing that a decision against enrollment would be arbitrary and unreasonable.'" Ibid. (quoting Guideline 3(i)). "'[A] defendant must demonstrate something extraordinary or unusual,' not merely 'that the accused is a first-time offender and has admitted or accepted responsibility for the crime.'" Ibid. (quoting Nwobu, 6 A-3305-15T4 supra, 139 N.J. at 252 ). "[T]his is a fact-sensitive analysis that requires consideration of 'idiosyncratic' circumstances demonstrating that denial | 2 | 2015–2017 |
State of New Jersey v. Antwain T. Waters
green
2 sentences2017Therefore, the presumption applied here. 7 A-2812-15T1 "A defendant may rebut the presumption by 'showing compelling reasons justifying the applicant's admission and establishing that a decision against enrollment would be arbitrary and unreasonable.'" Waters, supra, 439 N.J. 2017Therefore, the presumption applied here. 7 A-2812-15T1 "A defendant may rebut the presumption by 'showing compelling reasons justifying the applicant's admission and establishing that a decision against enrollment would be arbitrary and unreasonable.'" Waters, supra, 439 N.J. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.