Williamson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
427 federal appellate · 64 district · 720 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,638 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2025 · most notably Lilly v. Virginia (1999), United States v. Mezzanatto (1995)
427 federal appellate · 64 district · 720 state decisions — followed in 43 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Bruton v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States · Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Pinkerton v. United States
Cited together with Ohio v. Roberts · Lee v. Illinois · Lilly v. Virginia · Crawford v. Washington · Idaho v. Wright
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 1,638 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In our view, the most faithful reading of Rule 804(b)(3) is that it does not allow admission of non-self-inculpatory statements, even if they are made within a broader narrative that is generally self-inculpatory. The district court may not just assume for purposes of Rule 804(b)(3) that a statement is self-inculpatory because it is part of a fuller confession, and this is especially true when the statement implicates someone else.”
77 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“careful examination of all the circumstances surrounding the criminal activity involved.”
75 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(b) Hearsay exceptions. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: (3) Statement against interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far intended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.”
38 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.