Smith v. Baldwin’s Empirical Analysis
466 F.3d 805 · 2006
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Coleman v. Thompson · Murray v. Carrier · Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Koon 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Threatening a potential witness for the defense with execution constitutes prosecuto-rial misconduct far more coercive than that present in any reported case of which we are aware. The cases in which courts have considered the prosecution's threats to charge witnesses with perjury or other criminal offenses, have all involved the possibility of far less serious punishment.... Here, the prosecution’s unprecedented threat to seek the death penalty against Ed-monds if he testified that Smith was not the killer was unquestionably coercive and constituted substantial interference with Ed-monds’s decision whether to testify.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Baldwin“(a) Was not the only participant in the underlying crime; (b) Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request, command, importune, cause or aid in the commission thereof; (c) Was not armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon; (d) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant was armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon; and (e) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Baldwin“would not effectively counter the threat of execution, as the state would be free to seek the death penalty even if barred from relying on Edmonds’s testimony. If Edmonds did decide to testify, there would be no way to ensure that the looming prosecutorial threat of execution would not significantly influence his testimony.... Any testimony that contradicted his affidavits would be of doubtful reliability.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Baldwin
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.