Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

102 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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Constitutional Error. If the appellate record in a criminal case reveals constitutional error that is subject to harmless error review, the court of appeals must reverse the judgment of conviction or punishment unless the court determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the conviction or punishment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Marion D. Jones v. State · Jackie Lee Bibbs v. State

2. “When determining whether the trial court erred in admitting relevant photographs into evidence, our review is limited to determining whether the probative value of the photos is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. The trial court’s decision is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, and is disturbed on appeal only when the trial court’s decision falls outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. A court may consider many factors in determining whether the probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. These factors include: the number of exhibits offered, their gruesomeness, their detail, their size, whether they are in color or black and white, whether they are closeup, and whether the body depicted is clothed or naked. A court, however, should not be limited by this list.”

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

3. “... if the error is ineffective assistance of counsel, in order to prevail appellant must meet the second prong of Strickland , i.e., he must meet the burden of establishing harm. If he meets that prong, he has exceeded what he needs to prove under either (a) or (b) of the harmless error rule, and he gets relief. Appellant would actually be better off if this is non-constitutional error because in that case his burden is less than the burden imposed by the second prong of Strickland .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Ex Parte Martinez