United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
596 F.2d 44 · 1979
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently October 2009 · most notably United States v. Maldonado-Rivera (1990), United States v. Wong (1994)
33 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from New York Southern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite · Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus · Williamson v. United States · United States v. Benedetto
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“exercise of broad discretion will not lightly be disturbed[,]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A conviction “based on eyewitness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” “[RJeliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony,” and the court must look to the “totality of the circumstanc es” to determine whether the in-court identification is reliable even if the pretrial identification procedure was suggestive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The legislative history of Rule 404 suggests that the policy of protecting the accused should be embraced in good faith by prosecutor and judge. Accordingly, the onus of showing that prejudice is overbalanced by need and good faith should rest on the Government. This may call for prosecutorial restraint. More than one court has expressed concern “over the government’s readiness to jeopardize a conviction by use of other crimes evidence when the question of admissibility ... is a close one.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Salazar
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.