State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 46 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In view of the lack of specificity in defendant’s application we conclude the trial court could not, on the sole basis of defendant’s application, ascertain whether his claim was ‘necessary in the interest of justice’ or was ‘frivolous and unwarranted.’ ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. McGhee · State v. Carroll

2. ““An accomplice is a person who willfully unites in, or is in some way concerned in the commission of a crime. The general rule for determining whether a witness is an accomplice is if he could be charged with and convicted of the specific offense for which an accused is on trial. (Authorities cited). “But something more than mere knowledge that a crime is contemplated, or mere personal presence at the time and place where committed, must be shown in order to make one an accomplice. And it must be established by a preponderance of the evidence that a witness was in fact an accomplice. (Authorities cited). “Corroborative evidence may be either direct or circumstantial. (Authorities cited). “And testimony offered as corroboration need not be entirely inconsistent with innocence. (Authority cited). “Whether there exists corroborative evidence adequate to meet the requirements of Code § 782.5, quoted supra, is a question of law for the courts, sufficiency thereof a fact issue for the jury. Furthermore, evidence introduced to corroborate an accomplice need be neither strong nor corroborative of every material matter, being sufficient if it legitimately tends to connect an accused with the crime charged and lends support to credibility of an accomplice. (Authorities cited).””

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

3. ““The foregoing constitutional rights [of effective assistance of counsel and equal protection] preserved for an accused by both the federal and state constitutions are implemented in Iowa by section 775.-5, The Code. Although this statute does not give an accused any greater substantive rights than he previously had, it does make provision for compensation to assigned counsel for personal services he renders in the defense of an indigent accused and .payment of such sums as the coiirt may determine are necessary for investigation in the interest of justice.” (Emphasis added.)”

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