People v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 6 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The state court’s conclusion that defendant “cited no evidence to suggest that defense counsel actively lessened his defense as a result of his pending felony charge ...” is amply supported by the record. Counsel conducted a vigorous defense, lodging appropriate objections to evidence, engaging in extensive and competent cross-examination, and presenting testimony of defendant and two other witnesses. The Michigan Supreme Court reasonably concluded that petitioner failed to show any adverse effect on his representation by counsel’s conflict of interest. As a result, the decision of the Michigan Supreme Court that petitioner was not denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Hofbauer

2. “Defendant argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights because his attorney was charged with a felony pending in the same county. Defendant asks that we presume a conflict of interest exists whenever an attorney is being prosecuted in the same county as a criminal defendant whom he represents. We decline to create such a rule and hold instead that in order to demonstrate that a conflict of interest has violated his Sixth Amendment rights, a defendant “must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.” Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 , 350, 100 S.Ct. 1708 , 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Hofbauer

3. “it involved the testimony of a five-year-old complainant, while the present case involves the testimony of a sixteen-year-old complainant whom the defense had full opportunity to cross-examine”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Gursky