Williams v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The county judge had only one issue to decide when he presided at Williams’ preliminary hearing, whether there was sufficient cause for charging Williams with murder (see Va. Code Ann. § 19.1-106 (1960 Repl. vol.)) or, in other words, whether there was reasonable ground to believe that a murder had been committed and Williams was the person who had committed the murder. * * # “Because a preliminary hearing is essentially a screening process, the Code of Virginia prescribed as early as 1849, and still prescribes, that the examining judge or justice ‘shall examine on oath the witnesses for and against . . . [the accused]’. (Emphasis supplied.) Code of 1849, ch. 204, § 11, now Va. Code Ann. § 19.1-101 (1960 Repl. vol.) * * * , Defense counsel therefore had the right to present evidence for Williams, that is, to show there was no reasonable ground for belief that Williams had committed murder. But counsel did not represent to the county judge that they wished to offer testimony for that purpose. Instead, they represented that they wished to call witnesses who would testify respecting an incriminating statement and a confession made by Williams. ’fC ’fr %»* Tp TP “* * * Neither Code § 19.1-101 nor any Rule of Court gave counsel for the accused the right to call witnesses at the preliminary hearing for the purpose of discovery. * * 208 Va. pp. 728, 729.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Foster v. Commonwealth · 52 Va. App. 690 - Wright v. Commonwealth

2. “So counsel complained of the county judge's actions at the preliminary hearing not because they were denied the right to present evidence for Williams, but because they were denied the right to discover evidence that might be used by the Commonwealth at a subsequent trial in the circuit court. Neither Code § 19.1-101 [now § 19.2-183] nor any Rule of Court gave counsel for the accused the right to call witnesses at the preliminary hearing for the purpose of discovery. We therefore hold that the county judge was not required to permit counsel to call witnesses for the purpose of discovery, and that the circuit court committed no error in overruling the motion to quash the indictment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 52 Va. App. 690 - Wright v. Commonwealth

3. “Williams’ actions at the [victim’s] home ... were continuous and interwoven. If evidence of any of those actions had been excluded, the circumstances surrounding the killing ... would not have been fully disclosed to the jury. Evidence of Williams’ actions after shooting [the victim] tended to show that the killing was willful and deliberate and to show his motive for the killing, [that of abducting the victim’s third child].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Foreman