618 So. 2d 606 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Accordingly, we hold that the constitutionally improper denial of a defendant's opportunity to impeach a witness for bias, like other Confrontational Clause errors, is subject to Chapman [v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)] harmless-error analysis. The correct inquiry is whether, assuming that the damaging potential of the cross examination were fully realized, a reviewing court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether such an error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors, all readily accessible to reviewing courts. These factors include the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony on material points, the extent of cross examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case. [Citations omitted.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 714 So. 2d 877 - State v. Butler

2. “Where there is conflicting testimony as to factual matters, the resolution of which depends upon a determination of the credibility of the witnesses, this is a matter of weight of the evidence and not its sufficiency. A determination of the weight of lathe evidence is a question of fact over which this court has no appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases. A reviewing court affords great deference to a jury’s decision to accept or reject the testimony of a witness, in whole or in part. It is the function of the trier of fact to assess credibility and resolve conflicting testimony. Where the trier of fact has made a rational determination, it should not be disturbed by an appellate court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Thomas

3. “Although the court initially sustained the state’s objection to this line of questioning, the record also reveals a later colloquy on this subject between the trial court and defense counsel. In this colloquy, the court clarified its ruling. The court stated, “Now, if you want to ask him questions about motivation [for his testimony] or other proper avenues of impeaching his testimony I have not prevented you from doing that.” However, defense counsel did not further pursue this line of questioning.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 153 So. 3d 1232 - State v. Gautreaux