State v. Willis’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably 860 So. 2d 704 - Howell v. State (2003), State v. Cromedy (1999)
52 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 Neil v. Biggers · United States v. Telfaire · State v. Van Cleave · State v. Warren · State v. Childers
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘It is for you to determine the weight and credit to be given the testimony of each witness. You have a right to use that knowledge and experience which you possess in common with persons in general in regard to the matter about which a witness has testified. You may take into account ability and opportunity of the witness to observe and know the things about which the witness has testified; his/her memory, manner, and conduct while testifying; any interest he/ she may have in the result of this trial, and the reasonableness of the testimony given, considered in the light of all the evidence in this case. “ ‘The weight of the evidence on any issue is not determined by the number of witnesses but by how reasonable, persuasive, and satisfying the evidence is to you. “ ‘If you find that any witness has willfully testified falsely concerning any material matter, you have a right to distrust the testimony of that witness in other matters and you may reject all or part of the testimony of that witness, or you may give it such weight as you think it deserves. You should not reject any testimony without cause.’ ” Willis, 240 Kan. at 586 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““With the exception of PIK Crim. 2d 52.20 relative to eyewitness identification, the trend has been to eliminate instructions which focus on the credibility of certain testimony. See comments following PIK Crim. 2d 52.10 (defendant as a witness); PIK Crim. 2d 52.11 (number of witnesses): PIK Crim. 2d 52.14 (expert witness); PIK Crim 2d 52.15 (impeachment); PIK Crim. 2d 52.17 (confession); and PIK Crim. 2d 52.19 (alibi). Whereas it would certainly have been the better practice to give an instruction along the lines of PIK Crim. 2d 52.09, we cannot conclude the giving of Instruction No. 5 was clearly erroneous.” 240 Kan. at 587 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is for you to determine the weight and credit to be given the testimony of each witness. You have a right to use common knowledge and experience in regard to the matter about which a witness has testified.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Clements · State v. Norris
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.