stand in his own defense (New Jersey) · Go Syfert
← New Jersey issues

stand in his own defense in New Jersey

6 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1964–2018 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Mallory v. Statered
ga · 1991 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007Compare Mallory v. State, 261 Ga. 625 , 409 S.E.2d 839, 843 (1991) (declaring that comment on pre-arrest silence “will not be allowed even where the defendant has not received Miranda warnings and where he takes the stand in his own defense”), with State v. Sorenson, 143 Wis.2d 226 , 421 N.W.2d 77, 90 (1988) (noting that comment on pre-Miranda silence is allowed once defendant testifies).

2007Compare Mallory v. State, 261 Ga. 625 , 409 S.E.2d 839, 843 (1991) (declaring that comment on pre-arrest silence “will not be allowed even where the defendant has not received Miranda warnings and where he takes the stand in his own defense”), with State v. Sorenson, 143 Wis.2d 226 , 421 N.W.2d 77, 90 (1988) (noting that comment on pre-Miranda silence is allowed once defendant testifies).

11
State v. Sorensongreen
wis · 1988 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007Compare Mallory v. State, 261 Ga. 625 , 409 S.E.2d 839, 843 (1991) (declaring that comment on pre-arrest silence “will not be allowed even where the defendant has not received Miranda warnings and where he takes the stand in his own defense”), with State v. Sorenson, 143 Wis.2d 226 , 421 N.W.2d 77, 90 (1988) (noting that comment on pre-Miranda silence is allowed once defendant testifies).

2007Compare Mallory v. State, 261 Ga. 625 , 409 S.E.2d 839, 843 (1991) (declaring that comment on pre-arrest silence “will not be allowed even where the defendant has not received Miranda warnings and where he takes the stand in his own defense”), with State v. Sorenson, 143 Wis.2d 226 , 421 N.W.2d 77, 90 (1988) (noting that comment on pre-Miranda silence is allowed once defendant testifies).

11
State v. Burtgreen
njsuperctappdiv · 1969 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970
1 sentence

1970State v. Burt, 107 N.J.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Strickland v. Washington green
scotus · 1984
1 sentence

2018Hindsight is twenty-twenty, but a PCR court must avoid "the distorting effects of hindsight." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 .

12018–2018
State v. Wilson green
nj · 1970
2 sentences

1992State v. Wilson, 57 N.J. 39 , 269 A.2d 153 (1970).

1992State v. Wilson, 57 N.J. 39 , 269 A.2d 153 (1970).

11992–1992
Griffin v. California green
scotus · 1965
2 sentences

1966We deem this a clear reminder to the jury that defendant had failed to take the stand in his own defense and thus a violation of defendant's privilege against self-incrimination, within Griffin v. State of California, 380 U.S. 609 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed. 2 d 106 (1965), recognized in New Jersey as authoritative in State v. Lanzo, 44 N.J. 560 (1965).

1966We deem this a clear reminder to the jury that defendant had failed to take the stand in his own defense and thus a violation of defendant's privilege against self-incrimination, within Griffin v. State of California, 380 U.S. 609 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed. 2 d 106 (1965), recognized in New Jersey as authoritative in State v. Lanzo, 44 N.J. 560 (1965).

11966–1966
State v. Lanzo green
nj · 1965
1 sentence

1966We deem this a clear reminder to the jury that defendant had failed to take the stand in his own defense and thus a violation of defendant's privilege against self-incrimination, within Griffin v. State of California, 380 U.S. 609 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed. 2 d 106 (1965), recognized in New Jersey as authoritative in State v. Lanzo, 44 N.J. 560 (1965).

11966–1966
Twining v. New Jersey red
scotus · 1908
2 sentences

1964NOTES [1] In Malloy, Mr. Justice Brennan, speaking for a majority of the court, cited Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 , 29 S.Ct. 14 , 53 L.Ed. 97 , and Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 , 67 S.Ct. 1672 , 91 L.Ed. 1903 , and then stated in a footnote: "In both cases the question was whether comment upon the failure of an accused to take the stand in his own defense in a state prosecution violated the privilege.

1964NOTES [1] In Malloy, Mr. Justice Brennan, speaking for a majority of the court, cited Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 , 29 S.Ct. 14 , 53 L.Ed. 97 , and Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 , 67 S.Ct. 1672 , 91 L.Ed. 1903 , and then stated in a footnote: "In both cases the question was whether comment upon the failure of an accused to take the stand in his own defense in a state prosecution violated the privilege.

11964–1964
Adamson v. California green
scotus · 1947
2 sentences

1964NOTES [1] In Malloy, Mr. Justice Brennan, speaking for a majority of the court, cited Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 , 29 S.Ct. 14 , 53 L.Ed. 97 , and Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 , 67 S.Ct. 1672 , 91 L.Ed. 1903 , and then stated in a footnote: "In both cases the question was whether comment upon the failure of an accused to take the stand in his own defense in a state prosecution violated the privilege.

1964NOTES [1] In Malloy, Mr. Justice Brennan, speaking for a majority of the court, cited Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 , 29 S.Ct. 14 , 53 L.Ed. 97 , and Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 , 67 S.Ct. 1672 , 91 L.Ed. 1903 , and then stated in a footnote: "In both cases the question was whether comment upon the failure of an accused to take the stand in his own defense in a state prosecution violated the privilege.

11964–1964

Where else courts name it

CA 59 (1928–2025) GA 42 (1973–2019) PA 40 (1964–2024) IL 30 (1964–2022) OH 28 (1969–2024) NY 27 (1924–2018) MD 21 (1957–2013) FL 19 (1959–2019) TX 17 (1958–2024) AL 14 (1972–2014) MI 13 (1942–2019) LA 11 (1976–2016) IN 11 (1981–2017) MS 11 (1970–2026) WA 9 (1967–2007) CO 8 (1958–2021) AZ 8 (1965–2024) TN 8 (1979–2013) NC 8 (1972–2023) KY 8 (1930–2019) CT 8 (1971–2002) VA 7 (1971–2014) DC 7 (1972–2009) MN 6 (1976–2014) NJ 6 (1964–2018) WI 5 (1945–2022) UT 5 (2017–2025) MT 4 (1980–2020) AR 4 (1994–2024) WV 3 (1974–2020) ME 3 (1977–1984) SC 3 (1980–2000) NH 3 (1985–2012) MA 3 (1983–2013) SD 3 (1984–1988) MO 3 (1973–1988) RI 3 (1988–2003) WY 3 (1974–1978) OK 2 (1962–1966) OR 2 (1966–1975) AK 2 (1996–2010) ID 2 (1971–1989) PR 2 (1943–1961) ND 2 (1981–1981) NM 2 (1986–1990) VT 2 (1984–2017)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check