Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 89 F.3d 1134 - Sherman v. Smith

Sherman v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

89 F.3d 1134 · 1996

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
2
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

35 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably United States v. White (2005), Ernest Sutton Bell v. Mack Jarvis Robert Smith (2000)

35 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

410199620002010decided

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 · Chapman v. State of California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Kotteakos v. United States · United States v. Bagley

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

  1. “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[cjorreetly applied, harmless error and structural error analyses produce identical results: unfair convictions are reversed while fair convictions are affirmed. Expanding the list of structural errors, however, is not mere legal abstraction. It can also be a dangerous endeavor. There is always the risk that a sometimes-harmless error will be classified as structural, thus resulting in the reversal of criminal convictions obtained pursuant to a fair trial. Given this risk, judges should be wary of prescribing new errors requiring automatic reversal. Indeed, before a court adds a new error to the list of structural errors (and thereby requires the reversal of every criminal conviction in which the error occurs), the court must be certain that the error’s presence would render every such trial unfair.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Trial errors are those that may be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented and are therefore subject to harmless and plain error analyses. Structural errors are the consequences of a defect in the trial that is necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate, rendering the entire trial fundamentally unfair and warranting automatic reversal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.