7 Cal. 4th 572 - In Re Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 36 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[although we may assume that Mick-ens also considered the prospect that his testimony might, if false, result in an indictment for perjury, that prospect cannot, as a matter of law, support a claim of improper interference with petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right of compulsory process. Nor are we willing to assume that Mickens could reasonably have believed that his truthful testimony would result in a perjury prosecution. Accordingly, we conclude that whatever the effect of the indictments for perjury of White and Storch, that effect was insubstantial insofar as it concerned Mickens’s refusal to testify.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 48 F. Supp. 2d 979 - Williams v. Calderon

2. “cause. [Citations.] Rather, he need only show that the conduct was a substantial cause. [Citations.] The misconduct in question may be deemed a substantial cause when, for example, it carries significant coercive force [citation] and is soon followed by the witness's refusal to testify.' ( In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 31 .) Finally, the defendant must show the testimony he was unable to present was material to his defense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 49 Cal. 4th 263 - People v. Jacinto

3. “showed merely that Oglesby contacted Fitzgerald to secure his help when Oglesby thought that he was going to be `used' by, and falsely implicated by, Leslie White.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. Woodford