Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently May 2017
1 federal appellate · 19 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · 30 Cal. 3d 408 - In Re Hall · Kelsey v. State · 89 Okla. Crim. 160 - Hudman v. State · 60 Okla. Crim. 99 - Neely v. State
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We recognize that the attorney for a defendant may, at times, have legitimate reasons for not calling certain witnesses to testify. The decision of which witness, if any, to call at trial is one of strategy best left to counsel, and generally will not be second-guessed on appeal. See, Kelsey v. State, 569 P.2d 1028 (Okl.Cr.1977); Davison v. State of Oklahoma, 428 F.Supp. 34 (W.D.Okl.1976). Before counsel may make such tactical decisions, however, it is imperative that he have knowledge of the substance of the evidence excluded. Thus, when, as in the present case, counsel knows of the existence of a person or persons who possess information relevant to the client’s case and fails to exercise ordinary diligence to pursue that evidence, we cannot justify such lack of industry as strategic error. See, In Re Hall, 179 Cal.Rptr. 223 , 30 Cal.3d 408 , 637 P.2d 690 (Cal.Sup.1981).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is the duty of the lawyer to conduct a prompt investigation of the circumstances of the case and to explore all avenues leading to facts relevant to the merits of the case and the penalty in the event of conviction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.