Williams v. State’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. “Following the reasoning of the court in Williams , we hold that, if note-taking by jurors will assist them, the court may permit them to take notes under appropriate conditions and admonitions. If jurors become too busy taking notes that their attention is diverted from the evidence, the court can instruct the jurors that their note-taking should not be such that they fail to pay attention to the evidence. Furthermore, to prevent the jurors from placing improper importance on their notes, a court can instruct the jury that jurors’ notes are not to be considered as evidence and, that in the event of disagreement, the jurors should request the disputed testimony be read from the official record.”

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

2. “The historical basis for prohibiting the practice no longer exists. At common law there was a general prohibition against jurors taking any writing not under seal to the jury room. The Tennessee Supreme Court reasoned that from this doctrine came the rule that jurors were not allowed to take notes. Watkins v. State, 216 Tenn. 545 , 393 S.W.2d 141 (1965). The basis for this rule was that most jurors were “unlettered” men. Id.”

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

3. “After due consideration of the facts in the instant case, we cannot conclude that this is the proper vehicle to lay down a hard and fast rule in criminal cases as to the propriety of jury note-taking and subsequent use in deliberations.”

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