State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

985 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 985 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]hen a defendant raises on appeal a claim that improper remarks by the prosecutor deprived [him] of his constitutional right to a fair trial, the burden is on the defendant to show, not only that the remarks were improper, but also that, considered in light of the whole trial, the improprieties were so egregious that they amounted to a denial of due process.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Weatherspoon · 169 Conn. App. 1 - State v. Holmes

2. “[i]t is well settled that the prosecutor, as a public official seeking impartial justice on behalf of the people of this state, has a heightened duty to avoid argument [or questioning] that strays from the evidence or diverts the jury's attention from the facts of the case. ... Nonetheless, in evaluating claims of impropriety during summation, we recognize that the privilege of counsel in addressing the jury should not be too closely narrowed or unduly hampered .... Thus, as the state's advocate, a prosecutor may argue the state's case forcefully, [provided the argument is] fair and based upon the facts in evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. ... Moreover, [i]t does not follow ... that every use of rhetorical language or device [by the prosecutor] is improper. ... The occasional use of rhetorical devices is simply fair argument.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 174 Conn. App. 536 - State v. Reddick · 175 Conn. App. 22 - State v. Franklin

3. “In determining whether prosecutorial [impropriety] was so serious as to amount to a denial of due process, this court, in conformity with courts in other jurisdictions, has focused on several factors. Among them are the extent to which the [impropriety] was invited by defense conduct or argument ... the severity of the [impropriety] ... the frequency of the [impropriety] ... the centrality of the [impropriety] to the critical issues in the case ... the strength of the curative measures adopted ... and the strength of the state's case.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 188 Conn. App. 813 - State v. Simmons · State v. A. M.