Smith v. McCormick’s Empirical Analysis
914 F.2d 1153 · 1990
Citation profile
90 federal appellate · 3 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 150 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2019 · most notably Harris v. Vasquez (1990), Jeffries v. Blodgett (1993)
90 federal appellate · 3 district · 30 state decisions — followed in 13 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
Relies on Gideon v. Wainwright · Furman v. Georgia · Lockett v. Ohio · United States v. Sokolow · Williams v. People of State of New York
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 150 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he defendant's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired, but not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Ceja v. Stewart · State v. Smith“under Ake, evaluation by a ‘neutral’ court psychiatrist does not satisfy due process.” Id. at 1158-59 . By contrast, the independence and confidentiality of Harris’s psychiatrists are not at issue. 18 . Ryan’s defense task was a formidable one because before he was appointed Harris, properly “Mirandized,” had confessed at least four times and had been interviewed by Dr. Gris-wold. He quite appropriately hired two psychiatrists to assist him in the defense. Harris responded by confessing to the jury that he had lied during the guilt phase and Ryan went to remorse and an abusive childhood to try to avoid a death sentence. Under these circum stances, Ryan's decision not to call his psychiatrist could reflect a reasonable determination that possible mitigation in the form of psychiatric testimony may have been outweighed by the threat of cross-examination and a confusing battle of psychiatrists and would possibly conflict with Harris's defense of remorse. Harris cannot now obtain a "second bite at the apple”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harris v. Vasquez · Ward v. State“"The right to psychiatric assistance does not mean the right to place the report of a `neutral' psychiatrist before the court; rather it means the right to use the services of a psychiatrist in whatever capacity defense counsel deems appropriate including to decide, with the psychiatrist's assistance, not to present to the court particular claims of mental impairment."”
4 later decisions 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.