State v. Smoot’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

60 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[T]he jury instruction that rape is easy to charge and difficult to disprove, and that a rape victim’s testimony must be examined with caution is inappropriate in modern criminal proceedings. The majority of states hold that such an instruction is improper in sexual offense cases.... “The California Supreme Court in ... People v. Rincon-Pineda, ... [ 14 Cal.3d 864 , 123 Cal.Rptr. 119 ] 538 P.2d 247 (1975) . .. after a review of empirical data ruled that the statement contained in such an instruction was factually erroneous. On the contrary, the studies reviewed showed rape was a charge difficult and traumatic to make and extremely difficult to establish in court. “Other courts have disapproved of such a cautionary instruction on the ground it applies a stricter test of credibility to rape victims than other witnesses and, as such, invades the province of the jury by intimating an opinion on the credibility of the victim and the weight to be given her testimony... . “We agree that the use of a cautionary jury instruction in sex offense cases, such as that proposed by Smoot , is improper and disapprove of its future use.” 99 Idaho at 863, 590 P.2d at 1009 (citations and footnotes omitted).”

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

2. “nowhere supported by the evidence. More damaging misconduct could hardly be imagined. Clearly the issue of guilt in this case was debatable, and clearly the jurors entertained doubt as to the defendant's guilt. What better proof is there of that than that defendant was charged with second degree murder, but acquitted, and also acquitted of voluntary manslaughter? What is particularly incomprehensible is this rationale given in the Court's opinion:”

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

3. ““[Our inquiry on appeal] is whether the lateness of the disclosure so prejudiced appellant’s preparation or presentation of his defense that he was prevented from receiving his constitutionally guaranteed fair trial.” Id at 858, 859, 590 P.2d at 1005 . (quoting from U. S. v. Miller, 529 F.2d 1125, 1128 (9th Cir. 1976)).”

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