Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We recognize that DeShieldsf] and Blackwell’s direct and cross-examination testimony were sometimes not only internally inconsistent and contradictory, but also arguably inconsistent with earlier statements. For purposes of this opinion, we draw the facts largely, though not exclusively, from the direct testimony of each witness. By convicting Smith, the jury ultimately chose to believe DeShields[’] and Blackwell’s testimony over Smith’s, notwithstanding the inconsistencies, contradictions, and untrue statements that defense counsel effectively and carefully brought out on cross-examination. 7”

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

2. “We believe the standard of admissibility when a criminal defendant offers similar acts evidence as a shield need not be as restrictive as when a prosecutor uses such evidence as a sword.”). . United States v. Stevens, 935 F.2d 1380, 1405 (3d Cir.1991). . United States v. Stevens, 935 F.2d 1380, 1405 (3d Cir.1991). . See, e.g., United States v. Lucas, 357 F.3d 599 (6th Cir.2004); Agushi v. Duerr, 196 F.3d 754 (7th Cir.1999). . Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 686 , 108 S.Ct. 1496 , 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988) (”

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

3. “Generally, when a party opens up a subject, he cannot object if the opposing party introduces evidence on the same subject. This is true even though the evidence . . . would have been inadmissible if the cross-examiner had offered it directly . . . .”

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