State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably United States v. Downing (1985), Reed v. State (1978)
6 federal appellate · 53 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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 Frye v. United States · 17 Cal. 3d 24 - People v. Kelly · Rivera v. United States · Commonwealth v. Topa · United States v. Franks
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Reed v. State · State v. Taylor“"[t]he controlling criteria regarding the admissibility of expert testimony, so long as the proffered expert is qualified and probative value is not substantially outweighed by the factors mentioned in Rule 403, [considerations of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time] are whether in the sound judgment of the presiding Justice the testimony to be given is relevant and will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." Id. at 504 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wheeler · State v. Irving““General scientific acceptance” is a proper condition for taking judicial notice of scientific facts, but not a criterion for the admissibility of scientific evidence. Any relevant conclusions which are supported by a qualified expert witness should be received unless there are other reasons for exclusion. Particularly, probative value may be overborne by the familiar dangers of prejudicing or misleading the jury. ... If the courts used this approach, instead of repeating a supposed requirement of “general acceptance” not elsewhere imposed, they would arrive at a practical way of utilizing the results of scientific advances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hall
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.