Smith v. Mann’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “only the first element — a knowing and voluntary waiver — -is required by the Constitution; the second element — a balance of interest weighing in favor of trial — simply governs the trial court’s exercise of its discretion to proceed with a trial in absentia that is constitutionally permissible.... We therefore conclude that while prudential concerns animate the need for a balancing of interests before a district court exercises its discretion to conduct a trial in absentia, all that the Constitution requires is a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to be present at trial. It is only the constitutional question that is before us in this habeas corpus proceeding.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2001 UT App 241 - State v. Wanosik · 56 F. Supp. 2d 289 - Dixon v. Miller

2. “nothing in the Constitution prohibits a trial from being commenced in the defendant's absence so long as the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives his right to be present”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 6 Cal. 5th 541 - People v. Johnson · Paul Clark v. James Stinson, Superintendent

3. “kn[ows] the precise time and place he [is] to appear for trial, and that the consequence of his failure to appear [will] be a trial in absentia”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cuoco v. United States