Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2012
10 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 Strickland v. Washington · Brewer v. Williams · Herko v. United States · Langley v. State · Wilson v. State
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The appellate courts in this state have declined to include admission of illegally obtained evidence within the penumbra of fundamental error. This preclusion is solidly based on two considerations which weigh against invocation of the fundamental error doctrine. First, only the interested party can and should make the judgment whether the introduction or exclusion of particular evidence is in his best interest; and, second, the admission of illegally obtained evidence does not affect the integrity of the fact-finding process. See generally Winston v. State (1975) 165 Ind.App. 369 , 332 N.E. 2d 229 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stoner v. State“The requirement that the defendant show the proffered evidence is substantively inadmissible and excluda-ble is akin to 'invited error.! ... [The defendant's omission contributes to the State's oversight in failing to lay a proper foundation at a time when the oversight could be corrected,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mullins v. State“(ineffective representation based upon counsel's failure to object requires a showing that had a proper objection been made the trial court would have had no choice but to sustain it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wingate v. State
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.