Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 962 F.2d 923 - United States v. Smith

United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

962 F.2d 923 · 1992

Citation profile

163
cited by 163 later decisions
2
states following
November 2016
most recently cited

105 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 163 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably United States v. Necoechea (1993), United States v. Baker (1993)

105 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

1160199220002010decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · United States v. Young · Pinkerton v. United States · Carnegie v. United States

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

  1. “only if the prosecutor's improper conduct so affected the jury's ability to consider the ... evidence fairly that it tainted the verdict and deprived [Gianforte] of a fair trial.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The prosecutor in this case not only placed the prestige of the law enforcement branch of government behind his conduct of the trial and behind Brown’s testimony, he also engaged in an additional and separate form of vouching that is qualitatively different than the statements involved in Young and Flake. In addition to invoking the integrity of the government, he invoked the integrity of the court. He stated: “But if I did anything wrong in this trial, I wouldn’t be here. The court wouldn’t allow that to happen.” This final remark cannot be classified as simply an arguably invited comment on the prosecutor’s special role. Rather, unlike the other com ments that courts have on some occasions reluctantly over-looked, it placed the imprimatur of the judicial system itself on Brown’s credibility. That is something we simply cannot permit.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “In order to constitute a 'substantial step,' conduct must go beyond mere preparation and must be 'strongly corroborative of the firmness of a defendant's criminal intent.'”
    3 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.