Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 38 state decisions

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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Isolated mistakes, poor strategy, inexperience, and instances of bad judgment do not necessarily render representation ineffective.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bahm v. State · Thompson v. State

2. “Instruction Number 19 The crime of murder which the defendant's [sic] Jason Eichelberger and Michael Gullett are charged in Count I of the Information is defined by statute as follows: "A person who knowingly or intentionally kills another human being, commits Murder, a Felony." To convict the Defendant, Jason Hi-chelberger, of the crime of Murder, a Felony, as charged in Count I of the Information, the State must prove each of the following elements: That the Defendant, Jason Eichelber-ger on or about August 17, 1999, 1. did knowingly 2. kill another human being, namely: James Beasley, 3. by knocking James Beasley to the ground and stabbing him with a deadly weapon, that is: a knife, thereby inflicting mortal injuries upon James Beasley, causing James Beasley to die. If the State failed to prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the Defendant, Jason Eichelberger not guilty of Murder, a Felony as charged in Count I of the Information. If the State did prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the Defendant, Jason Eichelberger guilty of Murder, a Felony as charged in Count I of the Information.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Eichelberger v. State

3. “The trial court is vested with broad discretion in determining the scope and extent of cross-examination.... The scope of permissible cross-examination extends to all phases of the subject matter covered in direct examination and may include any matter which tends to elucidate, modify, explain, contradict, or rebut testimony given in chief by the witness. Further, onee a party opens up a subject on direct examination, he can not close the subject to cross-examination at his own convenience.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lyles v. State