Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Stephenson v. State (2001), Overstreet v. State (2003)
45 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Giglio v. United States · Kyles v. Whitley
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The most extreme sanction of witness exclusion should not be employed unless the defendant's breach has been purposeful or intentional or unless substantial or irreparable prejudice would result to the State.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. S.T. v. State · Alexander v. State“(1) Whether the nature of defendant’s violation was trivial or substantial. The trial court should consider when the witness first became known to defense counsel. (2) How vital the potential witness’ testimony is to the defendant’s case. The trial court should determine the significance of the proffered testimony to the defense. Is the testimony relevant and material to the defense or merely cumulative? (3) The nature of the prejudice to the State. Does the violation have a deleterious impact on the case prepared by the State? (4) Whether less stringent sanctions are appropriate and effective to protect the interests of both the defendant and the State. (5) Whether the State will be unduly surprised and prejudiced by the inclusion of the witness’ testimony despite the available and reasonable alternative sanctions ... which can mitigate prejudice to the State by permitting the State to interview the witnesses and conduct further investigation, if necessary.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]rial courts have the discretion to exclude a belatedly disclosed witness when there is evidence of bad faith on the part of counsel or a showing of substantial prejudice to the State.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Farris v. State · ST v. State
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.