State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[I]t is established that a conviction obtained through use of false evidence, known to be such by representatives of the State, must fall under the Fourteenth Amendment." Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 [ 79 S.Ct. 1173, 1177 ] 3 L.Ed.2d 1217, 1221 (1959); accord State v. McDowell, 310 N.C. 61 , 310 S.E.2d 301 (1984). "The same result obtains when the State, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears." Napue, 360 U.S. at 269 [ 79 S.Ct. at 1177 ] 3 L.Ed.2d at 1221 . Further, with regard to the knowing use of perjured testimony, the Supreme Court has established a "`standard of materiality' under which the knowing use of perjured testimony requires a conviction to be set aside `if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.'" State v. Sanders, 327 N.C. 319, 336 , 395 S.E.2d 412, 424 (1990) (quoting United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103 [ 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2397 ] 49 L.Ed.2d 342 , 349-50 (1976)), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1051 [ 111 S.Ct. 763 ] 112 L.Ed.2d 782 (1991). Thus, "[w]hen a defendant shows that `testimony was in fact false, material, and knowingly and intentionally used by the State to obtain his conviction,' he is entitled to a new trial." Id. at 336, 395 S.E.2d at 423 (quoting State v. Robbins, 319 N.C. 465, 514 , 356 S.E.2d 279, 308 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 918 [ 108 S.Ct. 269 ] 98 L.Ed.2d 226 (1987)).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Allen · State v. Rowsey

2. “All right, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence that is now being offered and evidence that will be offered is said to be evidence offered in corroboration. When evidence is received tending to show that at an earlier time a witness mad [sic] a statement which may be consistent or may conflict with the witnesses [sic] testimony at this trial, you must not consider such earlier statement as evidence of the truth of what was said at that earlier time because it was not under oath at this trial. If you believe that such earlier statement was made and that it is consistent or does conflict with the testimony of the witness at this trial, then you may consider this, together with all other facts and circumstances bearing upon the witnesses [sic] truthfulness in deciding whether you will believe or disbelieve the testimony of that witness at this trial. It may not be considered by you for any other purpose.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Francis

3. “[w]hen a defendant shows that `testimony was in fact false, material, and knowingly and intentionally used by the State to obtain his conviction,' he is entitled to a new trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rowsey