State v. Feal
Supreme Court of New Jersey
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Long
In State v. Daniels, exercising our supervisory role over the administration of criminal justice, we issued a blanket prohibition against a prosecutor’s “drawing the jury’s attention to defendant’s presence during trial and his concomitant opportunity to tailor his testimony” during summation. 182 N.J. 80, 98, 861 A.2d 808 (2004) (citing Portuondo v. Agard, 529 U.S. 61, 70-71, 120 S.Ct. 1119, 1126, 146 L.Ed.2d 47, 57 (2000)). We further stated that “at no time during cross-examination may the prosecutor reference the defendant’s attendance at trial or his ability to hear the testimony of…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- State v. MacOnSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1971
- Roberts v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- US Bank National Ass'n v. GuillaumeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2012
- State v. KempSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2008
- State v. G.E.P.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2019
- State v. QuezadaNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2008
- State v. DockSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2011
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.