United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
413 F.3d 1253 · 2005
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 7 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably State v. Neyland (Slip Opinion) (2014), United States v. Visinaiz (2005)
33 federal appellate · 7 district · 10 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1959 · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Faretta v. California · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · United States v. Lopez · United States v. Turkette
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the defendant must “clearly and unequivocally” inform the district court of his intention to represent himself. Second, the request must be timely and not for the purpose of delay. Third, the court must conduct a comprehensive formal inquiry to ensure that the defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel is “knowingly and intelligently” made. Finally, the defendant “must be ‘able and willing to abide by rules of procedure and courtroom protocol.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n order to convict a defendant for violating § 1962(d), the Government [had to] prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant: (1) by knowing about and agreeing to facilitate the commission of two or more acts (2) constituting a pattern (3) of racketeering activity (4) participate[d] in (5) an enterprise (6) the activities of which affect[ed] interstate or foreign commerce.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While we agree with Mr. Smith that his knowledge of the law and his ability to represent himself have no bearing on his choice to proceed pro se, several other reasons support the District Court’s decision.”
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.