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.
6 New Jersey opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2000 0 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. Williamsgreen2 sentences1991We held that the refusal to pursue that line of inquiry was "serious error" and "a significant component of the deficiencies" that necessitated reversal of both the sentence and the conviction of that defendant. 113 N.J. at 417, 550 A. 2d 1172 . [I]t follows that a juror who will not, or cannot, consider relevant mitigating evidence pertaining to the defendant because the crime involves rape and murder is "substantially impaired" under the Adams- Witt test. 1991We held that the refusal to pursue that line of inquiry was "serious error" and "a significant component of the deficiencies" that necessitated reversal of both the sentence and the conviction of that defendant. 113 N.J. at 417, 550 A. 2d 1172 . [I]t follows that a juror who will not, or cannot, consider relevant mitigating evidence pertaining to the defendant because the crime involves rape and murder is "substantially impaired" under the Adams- Witt test. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Biegenwaldgreen2 sentences1993Thus, broadening the rule to apply to all such inflammatory aggravating factors, the Court concluded that the “voir dire should include questioning about evidence of aggravating factors that will be presented during the sentencing proceeding and that may with reasonable likelihood have such an effect on a prospective juror as to render him or her ‘substantially impaired’ under the Adams-Witt standard.” Id. at 32 , 594 A.2d 172 . 1993Thus, broadening the rule to apply to all such inflammatory aggravating factors, the Court concluded that the “voir dire should include questioning about evidence of aggravating factors that will be presented during the sentencing proceeding and that may with reasonable likelihood have such an effect on a prospective juror as to render him or her ‘substantially impaired’ under the Adams-Witt standard.” Id. at 32 , 594 A.2d 172 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Dixongreen2 sentences1991See State v. Dixon, 125 N.J. 223 , 593 A. 2d 266 (1991); State v. Moore, supra, 122 N.J. at 445 , 585 A. 2d 864 ("One of the problems that we have in capital cases is that the constitutionally-limited Adams-Witt standard for disqualification of jurors in capital cases * * * gets confused with the more general inquiry into juror predispositions or preferences that should mark the general jury-selection process."). *34 The procedures set forth in Manley and those approved by Adams and Witt are minimum requirements. 1991See State v. Dixon, 125 N.J. 223 , 593 A. 2d 266 (1991); State v. Moore, supra, 122 N.J. at 445 , 585 A. 2d 864 ("One of the problems that we have in capital cases is that the constitutionally-limited Adams-Witt standard for disqualification of jurors in capital cases * * * gets confused with the more general inquiry into juror predispositions or preferences that should mark the general jury-selection process."). *34 The procedures set forth in Manley and those approved by Adams and Witt are minimum requirements. | 1 | 1 |
William Henry Hance v. Walter D. Zant, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Centergreen2 sentences1991See, e.g., Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 84-85 , 108 S.Ct. 2273, 2276-77 , 101 L.Ed. 2d 80, 87-88 (1988); accord Hance v. Zant, 696 F. 2d 940, 956 (11th Cir.1983); Hovey v. Superior Court, 28 Cal. 3d 1 , 20 n. 48, 616 P. 2d 1301 , 1310 n. 48, 168 Cal. Rptr. 128 , 137 n. 48 (1980). 1991See, e.g., Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 84-85 , 108 S.Ct. 2273, 2276-77 , 101 L.Ed. 2d 80, 87-88 (1988); accord Hance v. Zant, 696 F. 2d 940, 956 (11th Cir.1983); Hovey v. Superior Court, 28 Cal. 3d 1 , 20 n. 48, 616 P. 2d 1301 , 1310 n. 48, 168 Cal. Rptr. 128 , 137 n. 48 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
Ross v. Oklahomagreen2 sentences1991See, e.g., Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 84-85 , 108 S.Ct. 2273, 2276-77 , 101 L.Ed. 2d 80, 87-88 (1988); accord Hance v. Zant, 696 F. 2d 940, 956 (11th Cir.1983); Hovey v. Superior Court, 28 Cal. 3d 1 , 20 n. 48, 616 P. 2d 1301 , 1310 n. 48, 168 Cal. Rptr. 128 , 137 n. 48 (1980). 1991See, e.g., Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 84-85 , 108 S.Ct. 2273, 2276-77 , 101 L.Ed. 2d 80, 87-88 (1988); accord Hance v. Zant, 696 F. 2d 940, 956 (11th Cir.1983); Hovey v. Superior Court, 28 Cal. 3d 1 , 20 n. 48, 616 P. 2d 1301 , 1310 n. 48, 168 Cal. Rptr. 128 , 137 n. 48 (1980). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Adams v. Texas
green
2 sentences1989Under the Adams-Witt test, “a juror may not be challenged for cause based on his views about capital punishment unless those views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” Adams, supra, 448 U.S. at 45 , 100 S.Ct. at 2526 , 65 L.Ed.2d at 589 . 1989Under the Adams-Witt test, “a juror may not be challenged for cause based on his views about capital punishment unless those views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” Adams, supra, 448 U.S. at 45 , 100 S.Ct. at 2526 , 65 L.Ed.2d at 589 . | 3 | 1989–2000 |
Wainwright v. Witt
green
2 sentences2000Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 , 100 S.Ct. 2521 , 65 L.Ed,2d 581 (1980) and Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 , 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985). 2000Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 , 100 S.Ct. 2521 , 65 L.Ed,2d 581 (1980) and Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 , 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985). | 2 | 1991–2000 |
State v. Moore
green
2 sentences1991See State v. Dixon, 125 N.J. 223 , 593 A. 2d 266 (1991); State v. Moore, supra, 122 N.J. at 445 , 585 A. 2d 864 ("One of the problems that we have in capital cases is that the constitutionally-limited Adams-Witt standard for disqualification of jurors in capital cases * * * gets confused with the more general inquiry into juror predispositions or preferences that should mark the general jury-selection process."). *34 The procedures set forth in Manley and those approved by Adams and Witt are minimum requirements. 1991See State v. Dixon, 125 N.J. 223 , 593 A. 2d 266 (1991); State v. Moore, supra, 122 N.J. at 445 , 585 A. 2d 864 ("One of the problems that we have in capital cases is that the constitutionally-limited Adams-Witt standard for disqualification of jurors in capital cases * * * gets confused with the more general inquiry into juror predispositions or preferences that should mark the general jury-selection process."). *34 The procedures set forth in Manley and those approved by Adams and Witt are minimum requirements. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Ramseur
green
2 sentences1991In State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123, 256 , 524 A. 2d 188 (1987), we held that trial courts should apply the Adams-Witt standard in death-qualifying a jury, and in State v. Bey, supra, 112 N.J. at 152, 548 A. 2d 887 , we acknowledged that that standard applied to jurors who invariably favor the death penalty as well as to those who oppose it. 1991In State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123, 256 , 524 A. 2d 188 (1987), we held that trial courts should apply the Adams-Witt standard in death-qualifying a jury, and in State v. Bey, supra, 112 N.J. at 152, 548 A. 2d 887 , we acknowledged that that standard applied to jurors who invariably favor the death penalty as well as to those who oppose it. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Hovey v. Superior Court
red
2 sentences1991See, e.g., Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 84-85 , 108 S.Ct. 2273, 2276-77 , 101 L.Ed. 2d 80, 87-88 (1988); accord Hance v. Zant, 696 F. 2d 940, 956 (11th Cir.1983); Hovey v. Superior Court, 28 Cal. 3d 1 , 20 n. 48, 616 P. 2d 1301 , 1310 n. 48, 168 Cal. Rptr. 128 , 137 n. 48 (1980). 1991See, e.g., Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 84-85 , 108 S.Ct. 2273, 2276-77 , 101 L.Ed. 2d 80, 87-88 (1988); accord Hance v. Zant, 696 F. 2d 940, 956 (11th Cir.1983); Hovey v. Superior Court, 28 Cal. 3d 1 , 20 n. 48, 616 P. 2d 1301 , 1310 n. 48, 168 Cal. Rptr. 128 , 137 n. 48 (1980). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Bey
green
2 sentences1991In State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123, 256 , 524 A. 2d 188 (1987), we held that trial courts should apply the Adams-Witt standard in death-qualifying a jury, and in State v. Bey, supra, 112 N.J. at 152, 548 A. 2d 887 , we acknowledged that that standard applied to jurors who invariably favor the death penalty as well as to those who oppose it. 1991In State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123, 256 , 524 A. 2d 188 (1987), we held that trial courts should apply the Adams-Witt standard in death-qualifying a jury, and in State v. Bey, supra, 112 N.J. at 152, 548 A. 2d 887 , we acknowledged that that standard applied to jurors who invariably favor the death penalty as well as to those who oppose it. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Genins v. Geiger
green
2 sentences1991Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 , 100 S.Ct. 521 , 65 L.Ed. 2d 581 (1980) and Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 , 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed. 2d 841 (1985). 1991Adams v. Texas, 448 US. 38, 100 S.Ct. 521 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980) and Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 , 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.