Smart v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Scope: A person who has been convicted of or sentenced for a crime may institute a proceeding for post-conviction relief under AS 12.72.010-12.72.040 if the person claims: (1) that the conviction or the sentence was in violation of the constitution of the United States or the constitution or laws of Alaska; (2) that the court was without jurisdiction to impose sentence; (7) that (A) there has been a significant change in law, whether substantive or procedural, applied in the process leading to the applicant's conviction or sentence; (B) the change in law was not reasonably foreseeable by a judge or a competent attorney; (C) it is appropriate to retroactively apply the change in law because the change in law requires observance of procedures without which the likelihood of an accurate and fair conviction is seriously diminished; and (D) the failure to retroactively apply the change in law would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice, which is established by demonstrating that, had the change in law been in effect at the time of the applicant's trial, a reasonable trier of fact would have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the applicant....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Smart

2. “Under ... Teague, a [Judicial] decision creates a new rule "when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government." [Teague, 489 U.S. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. at 1070 .] When the [judicial] opinion creates a new rule, the rule applies to previously final judgments only in limited cireum-stances. For example, new substantive rules which decriminalize a class of conduct or prohibit capital punishment for a class of defendants generally apply [completely] retroactively. These new substantive rules apply retroactively because there is a risk that the defendant was convicted for an act that is not criminal or [that the defendant] faces a punishment that is not allowed by law. However, new procedural rules generally do not apply retroactively. New procedural rules merely raise the possibility that someone convicted with the use of the invalidated procedure might have been acquitted otherwise. Because of this more speculative connection to innocence, [the courts] give retroactive effect to only a small set of watershed rules of criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Charles v. State

3. “reflects two longstanding tenets of common-law criminal jurisprudence: that the "truth of every accusation" against a defendant "should afterward be confirmed by the unanimous suffrage of twelve of his equals and neighbours," 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 343 (1769), and that "an accusation which lacks any particular fact which the law makes essential to the punishment is ... no accusation within the requirements of the common law, and it is not accusation in reason," 1 J. Bishop, Criminal Procedure § 87, p. 55 (2d ed. 1872).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Smart