Williams v. Price
Open-knowledge reference entry
Williams v. Price, 343 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2003), was a 2003 legal case decided in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The appellant was Ronald A. Williams, an African American prisoner; the suit was brought against James Price, the prison superintendent of State Correctional Institution – Pittsburgh, and D. Michael Fisher, the then-Attorney General of Pennsylvania.
The case involved voir dire, a legal process in which potential jurors are asked questions to investigate their suitability for jury duty. Williams, serving life imprisonment for first-degree murder for the 1984 slaying of Archie Bradley in Cranberry Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania. Williams alleged that his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury was abridged when jurors lied regarding their racial prejudices during voir dire. State courts had refused to consider the testimony of a witness who stated that a juror had uttered derogatory remarks about African Americans during an encounter in the courthouse after the conclusion of the trial.
Samuel Alito, writing the court's opinion, declared that "the state courts' refusal to receive some but not all of this evidence violated Williams's clearly established constitutional rights."
The opinion granted a writ of habeas corpus to Williams.
References
External links
Works related to Williams v.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Williams v. Price” as open-knowledge reference entry. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as open-knowledge reference entry. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Feb 12, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q8021127. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2003 and 1984.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Williams v. Price”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Williams v. Price primary sources, Williams v. Price archive and Williams research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Williams v. Price”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Williams v. Price” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.