Anderson v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
751 F.2d 96 · 1984
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably State v. Shifflett (1986), State v. Hartley (1986)
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 994
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Edwards v. Arizona · Rhode Island v. Innis · Harrington v. California
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The question is not whether there is legally 'sufficient evidence [of guilt] on which the accused could have been convicted without the evidence complained of.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is a reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to the conviction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Holland v. Scully · Medina v. Keane““Police interrogation is more severely restricted after the suspect asserts his right to counsel than after he asserts his right to silence. See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85 , 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1884-85 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. at 104 and n. 10, 96 S.Ct. at 326 and n. 10. But see Kamisar, supra [The Edwards and Bradshaw Cases: The Court Giveth and the Court Taketh Away, in 5 the Supreme Court: Trends and Developments 1982-1983, at 153 (1984)] at p. 157 (arguing that the level of procedural protection should not depend on which right the suspect invokes, since the same police actions are just as coercive after the suspect invokes one right as after he invokes the other and the suspect typically does not know that the extent of his protection hinges on his choice of rights).” Anderson v. Smith, 751 F.2d 96, 101 (2nd Cir.1984).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Watson v. State
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.