Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably Burgess v. State (1994), King v. State (2000)
37 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 Batson v. Kentucky · Hernandez v. New York · Craven v. Lowndes County Hospital Authority · 187 Ga. App. 185 - Bess v. State · 207 Ga. App. 424 - Higginbotham v. State
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here, as here, racially-neutral reasons are given, "the ultimate inquiry for the (trial court) is not whether counsel's reason(s are) suspect, or weak, or irrational, but whether counsel is telling the truth in his or her assertion that the challenge is not race-based. [Cit.].... `As with the state of mind of a juror, evaluation of the prosecutor's state of mind based on demeanor and credibility lies `peculiarly within a trial judge's province.' (Cits.)" [Cit.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Taylor v. State · Allen v. State“"the ultimate inquiry for the [trial court] is not whether counsel's reason[s are] suspect, or weak, or irrational, but whether counsel is telling the truth in his or her assertion that the challenge is not race-based." [Cit.] [Emphasis supplied.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Walton v. State · Bell v. Austin“[T]he trial [court] chose to believe the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanation for striking the two jurors in question, rejecting [appellant’s] assertion that the reasons were pretex-tual. [Under] Batson, . . . the trial court’s decision on the ultimate question of discriminatory intent represents a finding of fact of the sort accorded great deference on appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Trammel 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.