United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
987 F.2d 888 · 1993
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably United States v. Dhinsa (2001), United States v. Willis (1994)
19 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on United States v. Bagley · Arizona v. Fulminante · Ake v. Oklahoma · Rose v. Clark · Lord Electric Co. 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] person who is financiallyunable to obtain investigative, expert, or other services necessary for adequate representation may request them in an ex parte application. Upon finding, after appropriate inquiry in an ex parte proceeding, that the services are necessary . . . the court . . . shall authorize counsel to obtain the services.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A psychiatrist might have testified to other issues at trial and sentencing, including that [the defendant's] behavior was not inconsistent with his being under duress. ... Explaining this behavior might have bolstered the credibility of his duress claim, which was relevant to the jury's determination.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“evidence of the defendant's guilt established that the availability of a psychiatric expert would not have altered either the verdict or his sentence). 31 For similar reasons, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to authorize expenditures for Dr. Solovey's assistance at sentencing. The court had the benefit of detailed reports from Dr. DeMier and Dr. Solovey. Dr. DeMier's report concluded that”
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.