United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
77 F.3d 511 · 1996
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 7 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably State v. Lotter (1998), United States v. White (1997)
28 federal appellate · 7 district · 13 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 · United States v. Bagley · Giglio v. United States · Kyles v. Whitley · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'may reasonably cast doubt on the ability or willingness of a witness to tell the truth.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Indeed, a sufficiency-of-the-evidence test would require appellate courts to usurp the function of the jury, for judges would be forced to guess, based on a cold record, how the jury might have weighed the remaining evidence, standing alone, in a hypothetical error-free trial. Because such an inquiry is inherently unreliable, Kyles rightly focuses attention instead on the potential impact the undisclosed evidence might have had on the fairness of the proceedings. Thus, the amount of additional evidence indicating guilt is not dispositive of our inquiry.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'the fact that other impeachment evidence was available to defense counsel does not render additional impeachment evidence immaterial.'”
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.