State v. Smart’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 2022
12 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 Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gideon v. Wainwright · Mapp v. Ohio
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The United States Supreme Court's decision in] Danforth [v. Minnesota] allows us to apply either the Teague test ... or a state constitutional test[,] so long as the state test is at least as comprehensive as the [Teague] test.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Charles v. State · Charles v. State“The [United States] Supreme Court, in Schriro v. Summerlin [ 542 U.S. 348 , 124 S.Ct. 2519 , 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004) ], has already [held] that judicial fact-finding, instead of jury fact-finding, does not "so seriously diminish accuracy as to produce an impermissibly large risk of injustice." We think the Court's analysis is persuasive on this point. In Summerlin , ... the Court concluded that the evidence of whether judges or juries were better fact-finders was too equivocal to conclude that judges were less accurate fact-finders or to hold that "judicial factfinding so seriously diminishes accuracy that there is an impermissibly large risk of punishing conduct the law does not reach." ... We think it is highly likely that the [U.S. Supreme] Court would reach the same conclusion if it were deciding whether the jury fact-finding rule of Blakely is fully retroactive. We therefore conclude that judicial fact-finding instead of jury fact-finding does not substantially impair the truth-finding function of the criminal trial and does not raise serious questions about the accuracy of fact-finding....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. State“We think the Court's analysis is persuasive on this point. In Summerlin , ... the Court concluded that the evidence of whether judges or juries were better fact-finders was too equivocal to conclude that judges were less accurate fact-finders or to hold that”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. State
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.