United States of America Ex Rel., Forrest Eugene Smith v. Alfred F. Dowd, as Warden of Indiana State Prison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 4 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It is recognized that Sec. 9-2208 is part of the plan employed by Indiana for the purpose of assuring enhanced punishment of persistent offenders and utilizes and requires the imposition of separate and distinct sentences, one imposing the normal penalty prescribed by law for the particular offense involved and the other imposing a further penalty of life imprisonment. Goodman v. Kunkle, 7 Cir., 72 F.2d 334 ; Metzger v. State, 214 Ind. 113 , 13 N.E.2d 519 ; Witte v. State, 228 Ind. 153 , 90 N.E.2d 802 ; Witte v. Dowd, 230 Ind. 485 , 102 N.E.2d 630 , certiorari denied 344 U.S. 841 , 73 S.Ct. 54 , 97 L.Ed. 654 ." (Emphasis added)”

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

2. “* * * The fact that the statute employs the device of two separate and distinct penalties, the normal penalty for the offense last committed, plus an additional penalty of life imprisonment, does not * * require that the latter be regarded as punishment for the status rather than for the offense last committed. In our opinion this unique, separate and distinct penalty feature of the * * * statute does not have the effect of removing the life imprisonment penalty from the category of “punishment for crime.” It may be imposed only where a status of habitual criminality has been attained by reason of the subsequent felony conviction. It is imposed as an incident to that conviction as enhanced punishment. It is the subsequent conviction which results in both the status of habitual criminal and the imposition of both the normal and the further or additional penalty of life imprisonment. Such penalty is imposed as an incident to such conviction of crime and in our opinion is punishment for crime excepted from the prohibition of the [Constitution,] Thirteenth Amendment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 567 F. Supp. 4 - Frazier v. Davis

3. “previously twice convicted, sentenced and imprisoned in some penal institution”

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