Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2026 5 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. Waysgreen2 sentences2026The New Jersey Supreme Court has recognized that "prongs one and three [of the newly discovered evidence test] are inextricably intertwined." State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 549 (2013). "'[E]vidence that would have the probable effect of raising a reasonable doubt as to [] defendant's guilt would not be considered merely cumulative, impeaching, or contradictory.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Ways, 180 N.J. 171, 189 (2004)). "'The power of the newly discovered evidence to alter the verdict is the central issue, not the label to be placed on that evidence.'" Id. at 449-50 (quoting Ways, 180 N.J. at 191 2026The New Jersey Supreme Court has recognized that "prongs one and three [of the newly discovered evidence test] are inextricably intertwined." State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 549 (2013). "'[E]vidence that would have the probable effect of raising a reasonable doubt as to [] defendant's guilt would not be considered merely cumulative, impeaching, or contradictory.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Ways, 180 N.J. 171, 189 (2004)). "'The power of the newly discovered evidence to alter the verdict is the central issue, not the label to be placed on that evidence.'" Id. at 449-50 (quoting Ways, 180 N.J. at 191 | 4 | 6 |
State v. Nashgreen2 sentences2026The New Jersey Supreme Court has recognized that "prongs one and three [of the newly discovered evidence test] are inextricably intertwined." State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 549 (2013). "'[E]vidence that would have the probable effect of raising a reasonable doubt as to [] defendant's guilt would not be considered merely cumulative, impeaching, or contradictory.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Ways, 180 N.J. 171, 189 (2004)). "'The power of the newly discovered evidence to alter the verdict is the central issue, not the label to be placed on that evidence.'" Id. at 449-50 (quoting Ways, 180 N.J. at 191 2026The New Jersey Supreme Court has recognized that "prongs one and three [of the newly discovered evidence test] are inextricably intertwined." State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 549 (2013). "'[E]vidence that would have the probable effect of raising a reasonable doubt as to [] defendant's guilt would not be considered merely cumulative, impeaching, or contradictory.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Ways, 180 N.J. 171, 189 (2004)). "'The power of the newly discovered evidence to alter the verdict is the central issue, not the label to be placed on that evidence.'" Id. at 449-50 (quoting Ways, 180 N.J. at 191 | 1 | 2 |
State v. Cartergreen1 sentence2026See State v. Carter, 91 N.J. 86, 110 (1982) (recognizing that even though "a new trial [was] not warranted under either Brady or the newly discovered evidence test," the "oral report of the polygraph test should have been revealed to the defense"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2020As a general proposition, appellate courts "decline to consider questions or issues not properly presented to the trial court when an opportunity for such a presentation is available unless the questions so raised on appeal go to the jurisdiction of the trial court or concern matters of great public interest." State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 20 (2009) (quoting Nieder v. Royal Indem. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Agursgreen2 sentences1982The rule established in Brady v. Maryland, supra, and its progeny provides that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. [ 373 U.S. at 87 , 83 S.Ct. at 1186 , 10 L.Ed.2d at 218 ] The Brady rule is invoked where information is discovered after trial “which had been known to the prosecution but unknown to the defense.” United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103 , 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2397 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342, 349 (19 1982The rule established in Brady v. Maryland, supra, and its progeny provides that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. [ 373 U.S. at 87 , 83 S.Ct. at 1186 , 10 L.Ed.2d at 218 ] The Brady rule is invoked where information is discovered after trial “which had been known to the prosecution but unknown to the defense.” United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103 , 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2397 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342, 349 (19 | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Carter
green
2 sentences1991To qualify as newly discovered evidence, the new evidence must be (1) material to the issue and not merely cumulative or impeaching or contradictory, (2) discovered since the trial and not discoverable by reasonable diligence beforehand, and (3) of the sort that would "probably change the jury's verdict if a new trial were granted." State v. Carter, 85 N.J. at 314 , 426 A. 2d 501 . 1991To qualify as newly discovered evidence, the new evidence must be (1) material to the issue and not merely cumulative or impeaching or contradictory, (2) discovered since the trial and not discoverable by reasonable diligence beforehand, and (3) of the sort that would "probably change the jury's verdict if a new trial were granted." State v. Carter, 85 N.J. at 314 , 426 A. 2d 501 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1982The rule established in Brady v. Maryland, supra, and its progeny provides that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. [ 373 U.S. at 87 , 83 S.Ct. at 1186 , 10 L.Ed.2d at 218 ] The Brady rule is invoked where information is discovered after trial “which had been known to the prosecution but unknown to the defense.” United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103 , 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2397 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342, 349 (19 1982The rule established in Brady v. Maryland, supra , and its progeny provides that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. [ 373 U.S. at 87 , 83 S.Ct. at 1186 , 10 L.Ed. 2d at 218 ] *111 The Brady rule is invoked where information is discovered after trial "which had been known to the prosecution but unknown to the defense." United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103 , 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2397 , 49 L.Ed. 2d 342, | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.