79 Wash. App. 21 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Q. [Prosecutor]: ... On May 5th of 1992, you had an omnibus hearing where the defense was going to be a general denial, you didn't do it. A. [Williams]: Yes. Q. But weren't you also claiming that your other defense was entrapment, that police tricked you into selling cocaine? A. No, that's not correct.... [Y]ou talked to me on this here ... I stated to you then that Lopez had purchased drugs from Ray.... I told you that I was not present when the drugs were transactioned....[ [5] ] Q. (Interposing) At your omnibus hearing, though, you state that your other defense was going to be that you were tricked into selling drugs; right? A. (no response) Q. How the police entrapped you. A. What, here, at the omnibus hearing? Q. Em-hem. A. I didn't have no omnibus hearings here. Q. All right, you weren't present at an omnibus hearing? A. Here? Q. Em-hem. A. I was at it, but I didn't testify to anything that my friend tricked me into selling drugs.[ [6] ]”

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

2. “. Webb v. Seattle, 22 Wash.2d 596, 610 , 157 P.2d 312 (1945). This reasoning does not extend to situations in which the prior inconsistent statement was made by someone other than the trial witness. If A's prior out-of-court statement is inconsistent with B's trial testimony, A's statement casts doubt on B's credibility if A's statement is true; but A's statement does not cast doubt on B's credibility if A's statement is not true. In this situation, A's statement is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, even though it also is offered”

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

3. “It can readily be appreciated that pleadings of this nature are directed primarily to giving notice and lack the essential character of an admission. To allow them to operate as admissions would frustrate their underlying purpose. Hence the decisions with seeming unanimity deny them status as judicial admissions, and generally disallow them as evidentiary admissions.”

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