228 So. 2d 377 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently April 2011 · most notably 570 So. 2d 925 - Czubak v. State (1990), 940 So. 2d 389 - England v. State (2006)
1 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Witherspoon v. Illinois · 110 So. 2d 654 - Williams v. State · Commonwealth v. Wilson · State v. Peele · State v. Mathis
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Witherspoon case, however, makes it equally clear that the State is also entitled to a jury that is similarly impartial and neutral as to penalty. In essence then, Witherspoon recognizes that both the prosecution and the defense in a capital case are entitled to jurors who are impartial as to penalty. A prospective juror is considered impartial, even though he may have a natural bias against capital punishment, so long as his bias is not so strong as to preclude or prevent him from at least considering the issue of punishment. The decision leaves unaffected the right of the prosecution to challenge for cause those prospective jurors who state that their reservations about the wisdom of the death sentence would prevent them from making an impartial decision as to defendant's guilt.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The most that can be demanded of a venireman ... is that he be willing to consider all of the penalties provided by state law....” [Witherspoon,] 391 U.S. at 522 [, 88 S.Ct. 1770 ]. If, upon questioning, the prospective juror says he doesn’t know whether he can vote for conviction if it might mean the electric chair, then the State cannot determine his willingness to consider all penalties, nor can it determine whether or not the venireman’s attitude toward the death penalty would prevent him from making an impartial decision as to guilt.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“neither gory nor inflammatory beyond the simple fact that no photograph of a dead body is pleasant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.