Smith v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Gall v. Parker (2000), 573 So. 2d 657 - Turner v. State (1990)
2 federal appellate · 40 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Young · Lockett v. Ohio · Smith v. Phillips
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Whenever the death penalty is imposed for a capital offense . . . the sentence shall be reviewed on the record by the Supreme Court. . . . . . . . (3) With regard to the sentence, the court shall determine: . . . . (c) Whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Here Smith seeks to prove his mental state by the testimony of either a ballistics expert or a crime scene reconstruction witness.... We do not believe that the expert assistance Smith claims he needed had anything to do with his defense which was that the murders were wanton, rather than intentional. The evidence he believed he needed was available through the use of state experts and facilities. He did not take advantage of the assistance available. At trial he cross-examined both the firearms examiner and the police sergeant in charge of the investigation of ,the homicides. The firearms examiner indicated that he had discussed the case with and cooperated with the defense attorney. Under the circumstances, it does not appear that the services of an independent ballistics expert were reasonably necessary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The opening statement by the prosecution,... and the gun demonstration included in it, only directed the attention of the jury to the evidence which he expected to prove through the testimony. The explanation of the incident and the demonstration were ultimately supported by the testimony ....”
1 later decision 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.