Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 292 F.3d 90 - United States v. Smith

United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

292 F.3d 90 · 2002

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
3
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

46 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Perez-Ruiz (2003), 44 Va. App. 741 - Thomas v. Commonwealth (2005)

46 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

460200220102020decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 753

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Giglio v. United States · United States v. Sepulveda · United States v. Diaz-Villafane · Freeman v. Package Machinery 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “whether defendant's counsel was prevented by the delay from using the disclosed material effectively in preparing and presenting the defendant's case. To prevail on this argument, the defendant must at a minimum make a prima facie showing of a plausible strategic option which the delay foreclosed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[W]e have noted that defense counsel must typically request a continuance to preserve a claim of prejudice by delayed disclosure of evidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.