Skip to main content

State v. Sugar

Citations

  • 417 A.2d 474
  • 84 N.J. 1
  • 1980 N.J. LEXIS 1389

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • finding that interference with confidential relationship destroys counsel’s effectiveness because effective defense can follow “only when a defendant has made full and frank disclosure of knowledge of events surrounding alleged crime”
  • noting that \dismissal of a prosecution is the appropriate remedy for official intrusion upon attorney-client relationships only where it destroys that relationship or reveals defendant's trial strategy\
  • excluding all evidence derived from violation of the attorney-client privilege, because “the fruits of [law enforcement’s] lawlessness must not be allowed to aid a prosecution in any manner.”
  • requiring taint hearing following police investigatory conduct that led to inadmissible evidence
  • “[w]ithout the guiding hand of counsel, an innocent defendant may lose his freedom because he doesn’t know how to establish his innocence”
  • “Because the Constitution requires the assistance of counsel and not merely his physical presence, counsel must be effective as well as available.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Pashman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

90 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.