Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 559 F.3d 607 - United States v. Williams

United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

559 F.3d 607 · 2009

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
7
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently June 2025

5 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

150200920102020decided

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

Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2111 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Brady v. United States · Arizona v. Fulminante · Neder v. United States · McCarthy v. United States · Duncan v. State of 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the burden of production and persuasion [for plain error] dictates the outcome.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “for purposes of determining whether the waiver was , in fact, invalid, one can determine whether the defendant adequately understood his right to a jury; moreover, if the defendant lacked such an understanding, one can assess the likelihood that he would have stood on his right to a jury had he been properly admonished of his right.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the sole constitutional requirement is that the waiver be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. The colloquy and the written waiver serve to document these qualities, but a jury waiver may be valid despite their absence. So long as the defendant had a "concrete understanding" of his right to a jury trial, his waiver is valid.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.