State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably State v. Brim (2010), State v. Mattson (2005)
73 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Donnelly v. DeChristoforo · Isaksen v. Vermont Castings, Inc. · Viereck v. United States · United States v. American College of Physicians · New York v. Penn Central Transportation Co.
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the defendant’s age; (2) the defendant’s lack of education or low intelligence; (3) the absence of any advice to the defendant of [her] constitutional rights; (4) the length of detention; (5) the repeated and prolonged nature of the questioning; and (6) the use of physical punishment such as deprivation of food or sleep. A defendant’s prior experience with law enforcement officers and the courts is also a factor this Court considers.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Aesoph · State v. Owens“may make remarks, not based on the record, which concern matters of general knowledge or experience.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fool Bull · State v. Beck“The [prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party 'to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor— indeed, he should do so. But, while.he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from’ improper methods calculated to produce- a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about, a just one.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Pursley
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.