Williams v. Price’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “if the other jurors’ alleged comments did not occur during deliberations and if [the juror’s] testimony about those comments” demonstrated bias or deceit during voir dire, “it could be argued that [the] testimony must be allowed by Rule 606(b)”). Admitting such evidence, however, may im-permissibly intrude upon jurors’ “mental processes concerning the verdict,” Fed.R.Evid. 606(b), and butt up against Warger's suggestion that the two safeguards against juror bias are bringing it to light”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. United States v. Shiu Lung Leung

2. “[T]he Federal ... Rules of Evidence categorically bar juror testimony ‘as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of jury’s deliberations’ even if the testimony is not offered to explore the jury’s decision-making process in reaching the verdict ... We hold ... that the exclusion of such testimony is not irrational and does not contravene or represent an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Warger v. Shauers

3. “Although McDonough was a federal civil case, a state court decision failing to apply this same rule in a criminal prosecution would represent an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Scott v. Arnold