369 F. Supp. 1213 - Smith v. Slayton’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 2103 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Harris v. New York · McGautha v. California · Cruz v. Hauck · Chaffin v. Stynchcombe · Harrison v. United States
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... Nor can it be argued persuasively that the use of the former trial testimony upon the present retrial constitutes improper pressure upon the defendant to take the stand, thus invading his privilege to remain mute. Presumably the defendant told the truth when he testified at the former trial with respect to the same transactions. The prosecution's use of that former testimony constitutes no more pressure than the prosecution's use of any other admission made by the defendant. That the prosecution's proof may tend to incriminate the defendant and the defendant may deem it desirable to take the stand does not spell out improper pressure. Inferences flowing from properly adduced evidence do not constitute a coercive force in violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pendleton 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.