State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
December 2004
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Waley v. Johnston · 49 Wis. 2d 263 - McCleary v. State · 131 Wis. 2d 246 - State v. Bangert · United States v. Adams · United States v. Bruce
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) [T]he defendant can receive the impression from the trial judge's participation in the plea discussions that he would not receive a fair trial if he went to trial before the same judge; (2) if the judge takes part in the preplea discussions he may destroy his objectivity when it comes to determining the voluntariness of the plea when it is offered; (3) judicial participation to the extent of promising a certain sentence is inconsistent with the theory behind the use of the presentence investigation report and (4) the defendant may feel that the risk of not going along with the disposition which is apparently desired by the judge is so great that he will be induced to plead guilty even if innocent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hunter“there was a discussion of a range from one to three as a possibility”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hunter“`neutral arbiter of the criminal prosecution.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hunter
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.