Williamson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently April 2011 · most notably Simpson v. State (1994), Williamson v. Ward (1997)
6 federal appellate · 61 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 Strickland v. Washington · Chapman v. State of California · Chambers v. Mississippi · United States v. Marion · Caldwell v. Mississippi
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Aggravating circumstances shall be ... 7. The existence of a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society ...””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In Fritz v. State, 811 P.2d 1353 (Okla.Crim.App.1991), the State’s forensic chemistry expert testified that twelve (12) hairs found at the crime scene were microscopically consistent with hairs from Fritz. Id. at 1362 . However, the defense’s hair expert examined the same evidence and concluded that only two (2) hairs were consistent with those from Fritz. Id. at 1362 . Furthermore, regardless of the knowledge of a defense attorney on a particular scientific subject or the thoroughness of his cross-examination of a State’s expert, such cannot be reasonably said to replace the testimony from a defense witness who is deemed to be an expert in his field.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“As used in these instructions, the term 'heinous' means extremely wicked or shockingly evil; 'atrocious' means outrageously wicked and vile; 'cruel' means pitiless, or designed to inflict a high degree of pain, utter indifference to, or enjoyment of, the sufferings of others. The phrase ‘especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel’ is directed to those crimes where the death of the victim was preceded by torture of the victim or serious physical abuse.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Walker 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.