State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Louisiana Supreme Court has been "`unwilling to say that the cumulative effect of assignments of error lacking in merit warrants reversal of a conviction or sentence.'" State v. Hotoph, 99-243, pp. 32-33 (La.App. 5th Cir.11/10/99), 750 So.2d 1036, 1055 , writs denied, 99-3477 (La.6/30/00), 765 So.2d 1062 and 00-0150 (La.6/30/00), 765 So.2d 1066 , quoting State v. Strickland, 94-0025, pp. 51-52 (La.11/1/96), 683 So.2d 218, 239 . As stated by the Court in Hotoph , a defendant is not entitled to a perfect trial, only a fair one. Hotoph , 99-243 at 33, 750 So.2d at 1055 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 971 So. 2d 1173 - State v. Burbank · 874 So. 2d 318 - State v. Brown

2. “Upon motion of a defendant, a mistrial shall be ordered when a remark or comment, made within the hearing of the jury by the judge, district attorney, or a court official, during the trial or in argument, refers directly or indirectly to: 1) Race, religion, color, or national origin, if the remark or comment is not material and relevant and might create prejudice against the defendant in the mind of the jury; 2) Another crime committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant as to which evidence is not admissible; 3) The failure of the defendant to testify in his own defense; or 4) The refusal of the judge to direct a verdict. An admonition to the jury to disregard the remark or comment shall not be sufficient to prevent a mistrial. If the defendant, however, requests that only an admonition be given, the court shall admonish the jury to disregard the remark or comment but shall not declare a mistrial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 131 So. 3d 207 - State v. Brown

3. “The issue of the defendant’s mental capacity to proceed shall be determined by the court in a contradictory hearing. The report of the sanity commission is admissible in evidence at the hearing, and members of the sanity commission may be called as witnesses by the court, the defense, or the district attorney. Regardless of who calls them' as witnesses, the members of the commission are subject to cross-examination by the defense, by the district attorney, and by the court. Other evidence pertaining to the defendant’s mental capacity to proceed may be introduced at the hearing by the defense and by the district attorney.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 39 So. 3d 692 - State v. Robinson