85 So. 3d 759 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited
16 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Manson v. Brathwaite · Old Chief v. United States · State v. Sepulvado · 384 So. 2d 355 - State v. Bonanno
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]bsent internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with the physical evidence, a single witness' testimony, if believed by the fact finder, is sufficient to support a factual conclusion.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“When identity is disputed, the State must negate any reasonable probability of misidentification in order to satisfy its burden under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 119307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). State v. Edwards, 97-1797 (La.7/2/99), 750 So.2d 893 ; State v. Woodfork, 99-0859 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/17/00) , 764 So.2d 132 . The reviewing court must examine the reliability of an identification according to the test set out in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977): (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the assailant at the time of the crime; (2) the witness? degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the assailant; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness; and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. See State v. Brealy, 2000-2758 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/7/01) , 800 So.2d 1116 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A. Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose. B. Mere preparation to commit a crime shall not be sufficient to constitute an attempt; ...”
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.