State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 32 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[W]e make such an assessment based upon our independent review of the trial court record. In so doing, we are not usurping the position of the District Court as the primary entity in Montana’s system of criminal jurisprudence, rather we mean to insure that the death penalty, unique in its severity ... is not wantonly or arbitrarily and capriciously imposed. State v. Coleman (1979), 185 Mont. 299 , 605 P.2d 1000 , cert. denied, 446 U.S. 970 , 100 S.Ct. 2952 , 64 L.Ed.2d 831 , reh’g denied, 448 U.S. 914 , 101 S.Ct. 34 , 65 L.Ed.2d 1177 (1980); Gregg v. Georgia, supra, 428 U.S. 153 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 ; Furman v. Georgia, supra, 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Smith · State v. Keith

2. “(1) The offense was deliberate homicide and was committed by a person serving a sentence of imprisonment in the state prison.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Smith · State v. Keith

3. “Q[uestion] In Judge Keedy’s order ... Judge Keedy indicates that there are certain mitigating factors that are enumerated by statute ... and that includes the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance or that his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired. In the report that I reviewed prepared by you, you refer to these sections ... Did you assume that your report was to be prepared within these legal guidelines? A[nswer] My report was to be prepared being fully cognizant of the nature of the conclusions of law in the order and I tried to respond in language which would indicate that I am familiar with these terms and I understand what these terms mean based on my professional practice Q Did you believe or take the position in comparing your conclusions that the mitigating factors could be anything, anything that could not be tied to deliberate criminal intent ... ? A That’s my understanding that I was to look for extreme mental or emotional disturbances and so on. Q Okay, assuming that Mr. Smith had taken LSD for a considerable number of years but specifically on a daily basis and for a month prior to the crime may have taken as much as 50 hits of LSD a day prior to this crime, may have drank as many as 12 beers on the day of the crime, what is your conclusion as to any mental effects of these drugs and whether in fact his ability to perceive reality and to act in a proper ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. McCormick