State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably State v. Good (2002), State v. Freshment (2002)
35 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 State v. McKenzie · McKenzie v. Montana · Tevlin v. People · Wasko v. Frankel · State v. Ostwald
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen voir dire examination discloses a serious question about a juror’s ability to be fair and impartial, that question should be resolved in favor of excusing that juror. The role of the District Court is not to simply establish some record from which a future argument can be made that the juror recanted his or her admission of bias. While there may be some temporary inconvenience to the court and to the parties from excusing a juror for cause, that inconvenience is minor compared to the expense and inconvenience that results from having to retry criminal cases.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. DeVore“When jurors who should have been removed for cause are not removed and must, therefore, be removed by peremptory challenge, the party whose challenge for cause was wrongfully denied effectively loses one of the peremptory challenges provided for by law. In other words, the effect of the district court's abuse of discretion in this case was to reduce defendant's number of peremptory challenges to five, rather than six.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A challenge for cause may be taken for all or any of the following reasons or for any other reason that the court determines: ... (j) having a state of mind in reference to the case or to either of the parties that would prevent the juror from acting with entire impartiality and without prejudice to the substantial rights of either party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Freshment
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.