Smith v. Kemp’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 2003
8 federal appellate · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Colorado v. Connelly · Miller v. Fenton · Trammel v. United States · Brooklier 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When persons of markedly limited mental ability such as Henry, are questioned without the aid of counsel, issues of ‘suggestibility and possible overreaching are raised’ ... Extra precautions must be taken. It must be painstakingly determined that they comprehend what events are transpiring. In addition, the presence of counsel should be assured absent an unmistakable, knowing waiver of that assistance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“rationale for the Miranda decision was to put all criminal defendants on equal (or nearly so) footing when deciding whether to talk to the authorities before getting the advice of a lawyer”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Cleary
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.