Commonwealth v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably Commonwealth v. Roney (2013), Commonwealth v. Sanchez (2011)
68 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 Strickland v. Washington · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Batson v. Kentucky · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Swain v. State of Alabama
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he standard charge for accomplice testimonyfis] commonly referred to as the.eorrupt and,polluted source charge.[ 2 “I]n any case where an accomplice implicates the defendant, the judge should tell the jury that the accomplice is a corrupt and polluted source whose testimony should be viewed with great caution.” ... “If the evidence is sufficient to present a jury question with respect to whether the prosecution’s witness was an accomplice, the defendant is entitled .to an instruction as to. the weight to be given to that witness’s testimony.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have held, however, that in order to succeed on an unpreserved claim of racial discrimination in jury selection in the context of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a post-conviction petitioner may not rely on the burden-shifting paradigm established by Batson. Rather, he must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, in the first instance and throughout, actual, purposeful discrimination by the prosecutor, in addition to all other requirements essential to overcome the underlying claim. [ Commonwealth v. Uderra, 580 Pa. 492 , 862 A.2d 74 , 87 (2004) ], see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 581 Pa. 57 , 863 A.2d 505 , 514-515 (2004). Placing this high burden on a post-conviction petitioner comports with the heightened criteria for obtaining post-conviction relief. Uderra, 862 A.2d at 86 .... See Commonwealth v. Ligons, 601 Pa. 103 , 971 A.2d 1125 , 1142 (2009) (explaining that a post-conviction petitioner is not entitled to rely on Batson's burden shifting approach, but instead bears the burden in the first instance and throughout of establishing actual, purposeful discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“However, it is well-settled that in order for a new law to apply retroactively to a case pending on direct appeal, the issue had to be preserved in the trial court and at all subsequent stages of the adjudication up to and including the direct appeal.”
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.