Commonwealth v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
201 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 201 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Commonwealth v. Boyd (1975), Commonwealth v. Anthony (1984)
201 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 Boykin v. Alabama · Mapp v. Ohio · McCarthy v. United States · Carnley v. Cochran · Johnson v. Louisiana
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 201 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“". . . These essential ingredients, basic to the concept of a jury trial, are the requirements that a jury be chosen from members of the community (a jury of one's peers), that the verdict be unanimous, and that the accused be allowed to participate in the selection of the jury panel. . . ." Id., 454 Pa. at 373, 600 , 312 A.2d at 600 .”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"The appellant argues that we should make a per se prophylactic rule reversing convictions for failure to comply with Rule 1101, despite the fact that a subsequent full and fair hearing proved the waiver of the constitutional right was knowing and intelligent. When we make rules for criminal proceedings we do so in order to protect the rights of the individual and therefore we expect strict compliance with those rules. However, a prophylactic exclusionary rule is applied only in extreme cases where all other attempts to secure compliance have proven unsuccessful. See generally Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 651-652 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , [1689-1690] 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). In this area there has been no showing of widespread flagrant disregard to justify formulation of such a rule at this time. "Furthermore, where there is a subsequent proceeding in which the waiver is proven to be knowing and intelligent on the record such a prophylactic rule seems unnecessary since the purposes of the rule to ensure the constitutionality of the waiver and our ability to review it, are satisfied. See Commonwealth v. Godfrey, 434 Pa. 532, 538 , 254 A.2d 923 (1969) (Roberts, J., concurring)." Commonwealth v. Williams, 454 Pa. 368, 372 , 312 A.2d 597, 599 (1973).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"`Q. [By the Court] Now at that time when you were called up to the bar of the court, you knew what a jury was, did you not? A. I never had a jury trial before. Q. I understand that, but you knew a jury consisted of twelve people who determined your guilt or innocence, is that correct? A. Correct. Q. [It was also] explain[ed] to you that if you wanted, you could have that kind of a trial with twelve people to decide your guilt or innocence, didn't you hear the Judge say that to you? A. (No response). Q. Didn't you hear the Judge say that to you? A. Yes.'" 454 Pa. 368, 371 , ft.n. 4, 312 A.2d 597, 599 , ft.n. 4.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.