People v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably Berghuis v. Smith (2010), State v. Hester (2010)
2 federal appellate · 16 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.
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“defendant must show that a distinctive group was underrepresented in his venire or jury pool, and that the underrepresentation was the result of systematic exclusion of the group from the jury selection process.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Ward · People v. Jackson“[n]o evidence has shown that district court juries contained more, fewer, or a number approximately equal to the number of minority jurors appearing in circuit court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Ward · People v. Jackson“We further agree with our concurring colleague that defendant has not shown how the alleged siphoning of African-American jurors to district courts affected the circuit court jury pool. The record does not disclose whether the district court jury pools contained more, fewer, or approximately the same percentage of minority jurors as the circuit court jury pool. Defendant has simply failed to carry his burden of proof in this regard. We also agree with our concurring colleague that the influence of social and economic factors on juror participation does not demonstrate a systematic exclusion of African-Americans. The Sixth Amendment does not require Kent County to counteract these factors. Finally, even presuming that defendant can rely exclusively on statistics, he has not made the requisite showing in this case. In Duren, the Court noted that the defendant proved that a large discrepancy occurred in every weekly veni-re for approximately one year. Here, while defendant’s proof may satisfy any duration requirement, the disparities over that time fell far short of those in Duren .... We therefore conclude that defendant has not shown a systematic exclusion of African-Americans for the Kent County Circuit Court jury pool.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. Berghuis
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.