Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 334 N.W.2d 742 - State v. Williams

State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 2017

12 state decisions

401983199020002010decided

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 Foster v. California · Hinkle v. State · Snethen v. State · Washington v. Scurr · State v. Newman

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

  1. ““The key point is that counsel is precluded from using argument to vouch personally as to a defendant’s guilt or a witness’s credibility. This is true whether the personal belief is purportedly based on knowledge of facts not possessed by the jury, counsel’s experience in similar cases, or any ground other than the weight of the evidence in the trial. A defendant is entitled to have the case decided solely on the evidence.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In appearing in his [or her] professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not: * * * * * * (4) Assert his [or her] personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, ... or as to the guilt or innocence of any accused; but he [or she] may argue, on his [or her] analysis of the evidence, for any position or conclusion with respect to the matters stated herein. * * * * * *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[vjiewed in context, all of the prosecutor’s challenged remarks were obviously based on his view of the evidence. He did not in any statement insinuate that his opinion was based on non-record facts nor can it fairly be said that he personally vouched against the credibility of defendant’s testimony.”
    1 later decision 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.