New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1/16/1991
State v. Thomas
Citations
- 586 A.2d 250
- 245 N.J. Super. 428
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- ordering post-conviction DNA testing where state’s evidence against defendant was “not strong”
- reversing order denying motion for DNA testing and stating that if the DNA test results indicated that the defendant was not the assailant, the trial court had the option of either conducting a hearing on the evidence or ordering a new trial
- dictum that state may have an obligation to test evidence for DNA patterns
- also discussing postconviction requests for DNA testing
- also discussing postconviction requests for DNA testing
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Judges Pressler, Deighan and Baime
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. MortonSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1998-07-30· cited 222×
- State v. DavisSupreme Court of Missouri· 1991-07-23· cited 107×
- State v. HammondSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-02-25· cited 100×
- State v. WilliamsNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1991-08-05· cited 39×
- State v. BehnNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2005-03-07· cited 38×
- Commonwealth v. BrisonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1992-12-10· cited 24×
- Riofta v. StateCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2006-08-22· cited 22×
- State v. RioftaCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2006-08-22· cited 22×
- State v. CannNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2001-07-06· cited 20×
- State v. VelezNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2000-03-13· cited 20×
- Sewell v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals· 1992-05-26· cited 19×
- State v. ReldanNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2004-12-07· cited 15×
- Cherrix v. BraxtonE.D. Virginia· 2000-02-28· cited 15×
- Dowdell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 2002-06-28· cited 14×
- Harris v. Peridot Chem.(NJ), Inc.New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1998-06-22· cited 11×
- State v. HalseyNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2000-04-11· cited 10×
- State v. WhiteNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1992-11-17· cited 10×
- State v. ThomasSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1992-10-13· cited 5×
- Jimenez v. New JerseyD. New Jersey· 2003-02-20· cited 4×
- State v. PavichHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 2008-10-10· cited 2×
Cites
19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1963-05-13· cited 33,902×
- United States v. WadeSupreme Court· 1967-06-12· cited 8,442×
- Ake v. OklahomaSupreme Court· 1985-02-26· cited 3,332×
- State v. MacOnSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1971-01-25· cited 857×
- State v. SchwartzSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1989-11-03· cited 141×
- People v. CastroNew York Supreme Court· 1989-08-14· cited 137×
- State v. FunicelloSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1972-01-17· cited 99×
- State v. HarperNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1974-05-15· cited 99×
- Andrews v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1988-10-20· cited 97×
- State v. R.G.D.Supreme Court of New Jersey· 1987-06-29· cited 90×
- People v. WesleyNew York County Courts· 1988-07-15· cited 80×
- State v. MingoSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1978-07-26· cited 60×
- Cobey v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1989-06-29· cited 53×
- United States v. JakobetzD. Vermont· 1990-09-20· cited 28×
- State v. ManningNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1989-06-21· cited 20×
- State v. GreenSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1969-11-17· cited 20×
- Kennedy v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 1989-01-27· cited 11×
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1966-03-07· cited 7×
- State v. StocklingNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1978-07-03· cited 7×
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.