Smith v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
390 F.2d 401 · 1968
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently April 2002 · most notably United States v. Halbert (1970), United States v. Glassel (1973)
32 federal appellate · 2 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Escobedo v. Illinois · Johnson v. State of New Jersey · McNabb v. United States · Lopez 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“not the amount of time elapsing between arrest and confession, but rather the nature of police activities during this period.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Attack is made on the instruction given that a witness is presumed to speak the truth. We are cognizant of United States v. Meisch, 370 F.2d 768 (3rd Cir. 1966) and United States v. Johnson, 371 F.2d 800 (3rd Cir. 1967) holding that the giving of such an instruction, where the defendant did not take the witness stand, was error. “In the case at bar, although appellant did not take the witness stand, no objection was made to the instruction given. The challenged instruction has been used traditionally in this circuit. See Wong Kam Chong v. United States, 111 F.2d 707 , 711 ([9 Cir.] 1940). United States v. Dried Fruit Ass’n. of Calif., 4 F.R.D. 1 , 5 (D.C. 1944). “We are of the opinion that before a panel of this court should consider the impact of the Third Circuit cases above cited, the point should be raised by proper objection in the court below and decided by the trial court. We do not reach it under the ‘plain error’ rule.””
1 later decision 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.