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.
9 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2026 2 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. Madisongreen2 sentences2017While a trial court only needs to address the issue of "taint" after finding the identification procedure used was "unduly suggestive," the Supreme Court advised trial courts "to hold a taint hearing and make specific findings of fact on the independent reliability of the identifications" when the identification process implemented was sufficiently "questionable." Madison, supra, 109 N.J. at 244-45 . 2017While a trial court only needs to address the issue of "taint" after finding the identification procedure used was "unduly suggestive," the Supreme Court advised trial courts "to hold a taint hearing and make specific findings of fact on the independent reliability of the identifications" when the identification process implemented was sufficiently "questionable." Madison, supra, 109 N.J. at 244-45 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Morrisongreen1 sentence2026See State v. Morrison, 215 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Reddishgreen1 sentence2021A-2573-18 20 In Point III, defendant argues that even if individually, "the other -crimes evidence and the prosecutorial misconduct in summation do not warrant reversal, in combination the errors 'cast sufficient doubt upon the verdict to warrant reversal.'" See State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553, 615 (2004) ("[W]e cannot excuse error on the basis of other overwhelming evidence of guilt when that other evidence also possesses the taint of error."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jenewiczgreen1 sentence2021"We have recognized in the past that even when an individual error or series of errors does not rise to reversible error, when considered in combination, their cumulative effect can cast sufficient doubt on a verdict to require reversal." State v. Jenewicz, 193 N.J. 440, 473 (2008) (citing State v. Kosovich, 168 N.J. 448, 540 (2001)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Koskovichgreen1 sentence2021"We have recognized in the past that even when an individual error or series of errors does not rise to reversible error, when considered in combination, their cumulative effect can cast sufficient doubt on a verdict to require reversal." State v. Jenewicz, 193 N.J. 440, 473 (2008) (citing State v. Kosovich, 168 N.J. 448, 540 (2001)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Coopergreen1 sentence2017It further 5 See id. at 220 (applying new test prospectively, from September 4, 2012). 25 A-4030-14T4 noted "it is helpful to an appellate court if a trial court sets forth its specific findings on why it deems a photo array not impermissibly suggestive," and the failure of a trial court to make such specific findings "unduly complicates appellate review." Id. at 245 (second quotation quoting State v. Cooper, 165 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Michelichegreen1 sentence1988See State v. Micheliche, 220 N.J.Super. 532, 537-538 (App.Div.1987); State v. Cook, 170 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cookgreen1 sentence1988See State v. Micheliche, 220 N.J.Super. 532, 537-538 (App.Div.1987); State v. Cook, 170 N.J. | 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. Michaels
green
2 sentences2026The proffered evidence must be sufficient "to support a finding that the interrogations created a substantial risk that the statements and anticipated testimony are unreliable, and therefore justify a taint hearing." Id. at 321 . 2011Sufficient grounds to justify a taint hearing include, but are not limited to, interrogative practices such as "the absence of spontaneous recall, interviewer bias, repeated leading questions, multiple interviews, incessant questioning, vilification of defendant, ongoing contact with peers and references to their statements, and the use of threats, bribes and cajoling, as well as the failure to videotape or otherwise document the initial interview sessions." Id. at 321, 642 A. 2d 1372 . | 4 | 1997–2026 |
Watkins v. Sowders
green
1 sentence2011Sufficient grounds to justify a taint hearing include, but are not limited to, interrogative practices such as “the absence of spontaneous recall, interviewer bias, repeated leading questions, multiple interviews, incessant questioning, vilification of defendant, ongoing contact with peers and references to their statements, and the use of threats, bribes and cajoling, as well as the failure to videotape or otherwise document the initial interview sessions.” Ibid. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Sugar
green
1 sentence1985To effectuate that ruling, we ordered that the trial court hold a threshold hearing — a taint hearing — at which the State would have the burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that “it [could] conduct a prosecution with unsullied evidence and witnesses * * Id. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.