931 So. 2d 790 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In other words, the question is whether `the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.'”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Peede v. State · 941 So. 2d 1073 - Ponticelli v. State

2. “a reasonable probability that the jury verdict would have been different had the suppressed information been used at trial.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Peede v. State · 941 So. 2d 1073 - Ponticelli v. State

3. “The evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing amply demonstrated that Smith’s trial counsel hired an expert to examine the scientific evidence in question and to challenge it. The expert, however, found no problems with the FBI analysis. In addition, defense counsel himself researched the FBI’s scientific methodology. Finally, Smith’s expert admitted at the post-conviction hearing that no research, including his own, was available to challenge the FBI evidence at the time of retrial. Accordingly, Smith failed to meet the first prong of the Strickland standard.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Secretary · Smith v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections