651 So. 2d 331 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 2018
15 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.
Relationships
Relies on Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Cherek v. United States · Boyd v. North Carolina · McCray v. New York · 354 So. 2d 1332 - State v. Schwartz
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] statement, made by a state witness and not the district attorney, does not mandate a mistrial under La.C.Cr.P. art. 770(2). Ordering a mistrial is therefore discretionary. La.C.Cr.P. art. 771(2). Factors the court may consider in determining whether a mistrial is warranted are whether the statement was (1) deliberately elicited by the district attorney, (2) responsive to the question, and (3) uttered by the witness to prejudice the defendant. State v. Williams, 26,655, p. 5 (La. App. 2d Cir. 3/1/95), 651 So.2d 331, 334 , writ denied [ 660 So.2d 448 ]. Citations omitted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Or could it be that I believe the charges are true also, couldn't it?”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Clem
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.