United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
858 F.2d 1218 · 1988
Citation profile
70 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently November 2006 · most notably United States v. Briscoe (1990), United States v. Vega (1988)
70 federal appellate ·
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 18 U.S.C. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Bruton v. United States · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Delaware v. Fensterer · Hampton v. United States
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The confrontation clause promotes accuracy in the trial process by ensuring that the trier of fact has a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth.’ Barker v. Morris, 761 F.2d 1396 , 1399 (9th Cir.1985). The right to confront witnesses guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way and to whatever extent the defense might wish. Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 , 18, 106 S.Ct. 292 , 294, 88 L.Ed.2d 15 (1985). ‘Trial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the confrontation clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on ... cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’s safety or interrogation that is repetitive or marginally relevant.’ Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 , 679, 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 1435, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1985). Thus, the sufficiency of cross-examination turns on ‘whether the jury had sufficient information to make a discriminating appraisal of the witness’ motive and bias.’ United States v. Rodgers, 755 F.2d 533 , 548 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 907 , 105 S.Ct. 3532 , 87 L.Ed.2d 656 (1985).””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[¡juries ... are presumed capable of sorting through the evidence and considering the cause of each defendant separately.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘In seeking to detect and punish crime, law enforcement agencies frequently are required to resort to tactics which might be highly offensive in other contexts. Granting that a person is predisposed to commit an offense, we think that it may safely be said that investigative officers and agents may go a long way in concert with the individual in question without being deemed to have acted so outrageously as to violate due process ... ’””
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.