Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 817 FSUPP 1443 - Williams v. Vasquez

Williams v. Vasquez’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
February 2021
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 2021

5 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

401993200020102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gregg v. Georgia

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

  1. “A [Williams]: So, we went up there [to the Vargases' farmhouse] and, uh, went in — first there was a bunch of people there. We had something to drink. We was drinkin' and stuff and, uh, we left and (yawn) went back about a half-hour later, everybody was gone except for, uh, these two dudes and this chick. Uh, killed these two dudes upstairs in the bedroom. Q [Officer]: Who killed them? A: I did. Q: You did. Well, how did — how did you do that? A: Well, we went to the door. Bob threw down on them when we went to the door and I was still on the outside and he went in. The dude, the chick’s old man was downstairs, he's the one who answered the door. Q: Which one was he? The smaller one or the bigger one? A: I don't know, he was just a Mexican. Q: Just a Mexican. A: We backed 'em up. I went upstairs and the chick and the dude was upstairs, the chick was in the bathroom, the dude was coming out of the bedroom, and I put him — both down on the ground on the landing there and then I called Bob, had him bring the other dude up, and told Bob to go down and take care of the chick. So he took her downstairs. I killed the two Mexicans upstairs, walked down and Bob, he couldn't — he couldn’t kill her.. So I started to shoot her there, but, it was, like he was getting all freaked out and everything so I told him to grab her ... and we left. Q: How long were you with [Meza] before you went back to the car? A: A minute, time to walk up there, shoot her, turn around and walk back. The reason ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “he thinks this whole trip is a bunch of “S.” He said he would just like to .get it over with and take what is coming to him. He does not think jail will do him any good.... He said that if he does twenty years in prison he will get out and probably do the same thing again. He sums it up by telling me that, one, he rejects authority and always will. Two, he does not go for the rehab bullshit. Three, he goes by the same code of ethics whether he is inside or outside of jail. Four, he is very prejudiced against Mexicans.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[i]t is further charged that [defendant] was personally present and physically aided or committed the acts causing the death of Lourdes Meza and that the murder of Lourdes Meza was willful, deliberate and premeditated and was committed during the commission or attempted commission of kidnapping in violation of Section 207 of the California Penal Code.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.