Smithart v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] defendant may always generally suggest that someone other than the defendant is - guilty of the charged crime. But when a defendant wishes to implicate a specific individual, evidence of the third party’s guilt is admissible only if the defense can produce evidence that “tend[s] to directly connect such other person with the actual commission of the crime charged.” This rule derives from considerations of relevance and materiality; as we explained in Marrone v. State, such an initial eviden-tiary showing is necessary because “if evidence of motive alone upon the part' of other persons were admissible ... in a case involving the killing of a man who had led an active and aggressive life[,] it might easily be possible for the defendant to produce evidence tending to show that hundreds of other persons” were possible suspects in the murder. In such a system, the resulting trial would be a confusing waste of judicial resources. The concerns voiced in Marrone have led virtually every state to. require some kind of preliminary evidentiary showing before allowing introduction of alternative-perpetrator evidence.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Walker, Unpublished Decision (11-27-2006) · Cleveland v. State

2. “[A] defendant's right to present a defense is a fundamental element of due process.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Valentine v. State · Valentine v. State

3. “[W]e agree with the court of appeals’s conclusion that the trial court misconstrued Mamne when it prevented Smit-hart’s attorney from arguing that DeForest was guilty. Nothing in Marrone limits an attorney from using an opening statement or closing summation to draw reasonable inferences about a third party’s involvement from trial evidence. The court of appeals correctly explained that, under Marrone, Smithart should have been able to argue to the jury that DeForest was guilty of the charged crimes: [T]he Marrone rule limits the introduction of evidence, but it does not limit a party’s ability to argue all reasonable inferences from the evidence that is admitted. If, despite Marrone’s restriction on the introduction of independent evidence that DeForest committed the crime, it was clear that sufficient evidence would be introduced at Smithart’s trial to warrant a reasonable inference that DeForest might be the perpetrator, then Smithart would be entitled to announce this inference in his opening statement.”

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