Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Mitchell v. State (2000), Stevens v. State (2002)
41 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 Irvin v. Dowd · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Estelle v. Williams · In re Oliver · Estes v. Texas
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“on the basis of federal constitutional doctrine and express no opinion as to what, if any, differences there may be”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]n all prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to a public trial ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Even where the measure does not amount to a violation of the constitutional rights of the defendant, when access to public proceedings is impeded, even slightly, the right to be free to walk into court and assess our justice system in operation comes under threat. Any such restriction must be imposed only with proper justification. Accordingly, we require under our supervisory powers that the court make a finding that specifically supports any measures taken beyond what is customarily permitted that are likely to affect unfettered access by the press and public to the courtroom. The finding need not be extensive, but must provide the reasons for the action taken, and show that both the burdens and benefits of the action have been considered. This exercise of supervisory powers applies to trials conducted after the publication of this opinion. The trial court in this case failed to provide such a record.... The court made no findings as to why the procedures were warranted. Because the court did not provide the reasons for its decision to authorize the procedures, and because the record does not clearly substantiate the need for these additional precautions, the trial court’s condoning of use of the identification procedures does not meet the standard we announce today. As an abstract proposition, this kind of procedure seems likely to produce both a slight burden and a slight benefit. The taking of names is perhaps intimidating for some, but the practice also is likely to hel”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.