State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 31 state decisions

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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We agree with appellant that the offenses charged in this case were so interrelated to each other that proof of one offense would possibly tend to establish the others. But, this does not, in the absence of other circumstances, result in prejudice or entitle an accused to a severance. A continuous transaction involving several legally distinguishable offenses, as occurred in this case, permits the State in a separate trial for any one of the offenses to present evidence as to all the offenses involved. [Citations omitted]. Appellant cannot claim prejudice because what would result in a separate trial of each offense would also result when a single trial is held of all offenses.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Morant · State v. Shive

2. “A defendant may be prejudiced when he has made a convincing showing that he has both important testimony to give concerning one count and strong need to refrain from testifying on the other. where it was stated that it was not “overly harsh” in the determination of whether to waive the privilege against self-incrimination to require the defendant to “take into account the matter which may be brought out on cross-examination.” _ “[I]t is not thought inconsistent with the enlightened administration of criminal justice to require the defendant to weigh such pros and cons in deciding whether to testify.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Seagraves

3. “Further, severance is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court directed toward achieving a fair determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence of each offense charged. The court should consider, among other relevant factors, the number of offenses charged, the complexity of the evidence to be offered and whether the trier of fact will be able to distinguish the evidence and apply the law intelligently as to each offense. The court remains under a continuing duty during trial to counter prejudice and order severance if necessary to achieve the fair result intended.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. McCrary