section 38-1703 sequestration of witnesses (Georgia) · Go Syfert
← Georgia issues

section 38-1703 sequestration of witnesses in Georgia

5 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1961–1983 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Baker v. Stategreen
gactapp · 1977 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
2 sentences

1980In Baker v. State, 131 Ga. App. 48, 51 (2) ( 205 SE2d 79 ) (1974), this court held: "[W]hile there are many cases dealing with the court's discretionary power where sequestration has not properly been observed, the rule appears to be as stated in McCartney v. McCartney, 217 Ga. 200 (7), 201 ( 121 SE2d 785 ): `A party's right to have the testimony of any witness, when material to the assertion of his rights, is unabridged, except by the exceptions under Code § 38-1603, and this right is unaffected by the rule of sequestration of witnesses under Code § 38-1703. [Cits.] Thus, the disobedience of

1980In Baker v. State, 131 Ga. App. 48, 51 (2) ( 205 SE2d 79 ) (1974), this court held: "[W]hile there are many cases dealing with the court's discretionary power where sequestration has not properly been observed, the rule appears to be as stated in McCartney v. McCartney, 217 Ga. 200 (7), 201 ( 121 SE2d 785 ): `A party's right to have the testimony of any witness, when material to the assertion of his rights, is unabridged, except by the exceptions under Code § 38-1603, and this right is unaffected by the rule of sequestration of witnesses under Code § 38-1703. [Cits.] Thus, the disobedience of

11
Baker v. Stategreen
gactapp · 1974 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
2 sentences

1980In Baker v. State, 131 Ga. App. 48, 51 (2) ( 205 SE2d 79 ) (1974), this court held: "[W]hile there are many cases dealing with the court's discretionary power where sequestration has not properly been observed, the rule appears to be as stated in McCartney v. McCartney, 217 Ga. 200 (7), 201 ( 121 SE2d 785 ): `A party's right to have the testimony of any witness, when material to the assertion of his rights, is unabridged, except by the exceptions under Code § 38-1603, and this right is unaffected by the rule of sequestration of witnesses under Code § 38-1703. [Cits.] Thus, the disobedience of

1980In Baker v. State, 131 Ga. App. 48, 51 (2) ( 205 SE2d 79 ) (1974), this court held: "[W]hile there are many cases dealing with the court's discretionary power where sequestration has not properly been observed, the rule appears to be as stated in McCartney v. McCartney, 217 Ga. 200 (7), 201 ( 121 SE2d 785 ): `A party's right to have the testimony of any witness, when material to the assertion of his rights, is unabridged, except by the exceptions under Code § 38-1603, and this right is unaffected by the rule of sequestration of witnesses under Code § 38-1703. [Cits.] Thus, the disobedience of

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

CaseCitedYears
McCartney v. McCartney green
ga · 1961
2 sentences

1980In Baker v. State, 131 Ga. App. 48, 51 (2) ( 205 SE2d 79 ) (1974), this court held: "[W]hile there are many cases dealing with the court's discretionary power where sequestration has not properly been observed, the rule appears to be as stated in McCartney v. McCartney, 217 Ga. 200 (7), 201 ( 121 SE2d 785 ): `A party's right to have the testimony of any witness, when material to the assertion of his rights, is unabridged, except by the exceptions under Code § 38-1603, and this right is unaffected by the rule of sequestration of witnesses under Code § 38-1703. [Cits.] Thus, the disobedience of

1980In Baker v. State, 131 Ga. App. 48, 51 (2) ( 205 SE2d 79 ) (1974), this court held: "[W]hile there are many cases dealing with the court's discretionary power where sequestration has not properly been observed, the rule appears to be as stated in McCartney v. McCartney, 217 Ga. 200 (7), 201 ( 121 SE2d 785 ): `A party's right to have the testimony of any witness, when material to the assertion of his rights, is unabridged, except by the exceptions under Code § 38-1603, and this right is unaffected by the rule of sequestration of witnesses under Code § 38-1703. [Cits.] Thus, the disobedience of

21974–1980
May v. State green
ga · 1893
2 sentences

1974May v. State, 90 Ga. 793 ( 17 SE 108 ); Thomas v. State, 7 Ga. App. 615 ( 67 SE 707 ); Cunningham v. State, 97 Ga. 214 ( 22 SE 954 ); McWhorter v. State, 118 Ga. 55 ( 44 SE 873 ); Phillips v. State, 121 Ga. 358 (3) ( 49 SE 290 ).

1974May v. State, 90 Ga. 793 ( 17 SE 108 ); Thomas v. State, 7 Ga. App. 615 ( 67 SE 707 ); Cunningham v. State, 97 Ga. 214 ( 22 SE 954 ); McWhorter v. State, 118 Ga. 55 ( 44 SE 873 ); Phillips v. State, 121 Ga. 358 (3) ( 49 SE 290 ).

21961–1974
Cunningham v. State neutral
ga · 1895
2 sentences

1974May v. State, 90 Ga. 793 ( 17 SE 108 ); Thomas v. State, 7 Ga. App. 615 ( 67 SE 707 ); Cunningham v. State, 97 Ga. 214 ( 22 SE 954 ); McWhorter v. State, 118 Ga. 55 ( 44 SE 873 ); Phillips v. State, 121 Ga. 358 (3) ( 49 SE 290 ).

1974May v. State, 90 Ga. 793 ( 17 SE 108 ); Thomas v. State, 7 Ga. App. 615 ( 67 SE 707 ); Cunningham v. State, 97 Ga. 214 ( 22 SE 954 ); McWhorter v. State, 118 Ga. 55 ( 44 SE 873 ); Phillips v. State, 121 Ga. 358 (3) ( 49 SE 290 ).

21961–1974
McWhorter v. State green
ga · 1903
2 sentences

1974May v. State, 90 Ga. 793 ( 17 SE 108 ); Thomas v. State, 7 Ga. App. 615 ( 67 SE 707 ); Cunningham v. State, 97 Ga. 214 ( 22 SE 954 ); McWhorter v. State, 118 Ga. 55 ( 44 SE 873 ); Phillips v. State, 121 Ga. 358 (3) ( 49 SE 290 ).

1974May v. State, 90 Ga. 793 ( 17 SE 108 ); Thomas v. State, 7 Ga. App. 615 ( 67 SE 707 ); Cunningham v. State, 97 Ga. 214 ( 22 SE 954 ); McWhorter v. State, 118 Ga. 55 ( 44 SE 873 ); Phillips v. State, 121 Ga. 358 (3) ( 49 SE 290 ).

21961–1974
Phillips v. State neutral
ga · 1904
2 sentences

1974May v. State, 90 Ga. 793 ( 17 SE 108 ); Thomas v. State, 7 Ga. App. 615 ( 67 SE 707 ); Cunningham v. State, 97 Ga. 214 ( 22 SE 954 ); McWhorter v. State, 118 Ga. 55 ( 44 SE 873 ); Phillips v. State, 121 Ga. 358 (3) ( 49 SE 290 ).

1974May v. State, 90 Ga. 793 ( 17 SE 108 ); Thomas v. State, 7 Ga. App. 615 ( 67 SE 707 ); Cunningham v. State, 97 Ga. 214 ( 22 SE 954 ); McWhorter v. State, 118 Ga. 55 ( 44 SE 873 ); Phillips v. State, 121 Ga. 358 (3) ( 49 SE 290 ).

21961–1974
Thomas v. State green
gactapp · 1910
2 sentences

1974May v. State, 90 Ga. 793 ( 17 SE 108 ); Thomas v. State, 7 Ga. App. 615 ( 67 SE 707 ); Cunningham v. State, 97 Ga. 214 ( 22 SE 954 ); McWhorter v. State, 118 Ga. 55 ( 44 SE 873 ); Phillips v. State, 121 Ga. 358 (3) ( 49 SE 290 ).

1974May v. State, 90 Ga. 793 ( 17 SE 108 ); Thomas v. State, 7 Ga. App. 615 ( 67 SE 707 ); Cunningham v. State, 97 Ga. 214 ( 22 SE 954 ); McWhorter v. State, 118 Ga. 55 ( 44 SE 873 ); Phillips v. State, 121 Ga. 358 (3) ( 49 SE 290 ).

21961–1974
Mathis v. State green
ga · 1982
2 sentences

1983Code Ann. § 38-1703 establishes the rule of sequestration of witnesses and “provides only that witnesses be examined out of the hearing of each other, and there is no requirement that prospective witnesses remain free of other contact or communications.” Mathis v. State, 249 Ga. 454 (2), 455 ( 291 SE2d 489 ).

1983Code Ann. § 38-1703 establishes the rule of sequestration of witnesses and “provides only that witnesses be examined out of the hearing of each other, and there is no requirement that prospective witnesses remain free of other contact or communications.” Mathis v. State, 249 Ga. 454 (2), 455 ( 291 SE2d 489 ).

11983–1983
Shelton v. State green
ga · 1965
2 sentences

1980In Baker v. State, 131 Ga. App. 48, 51 (2) ( 205 SE2d 79 ) (1974), this court held: "[W]hile there are many cases dealing with the court's discretionary power where sequestration has not properly been observed, the rule appears to be as stated in McCartney v. McCartney, 217 Ga. 200 (7), 201 ( 121 SE2d 785 ): `A party's right to have the testimony of any witness, when material to the assertion of his rights, is unabridged, except by the exceptions under Code § 38-1603, and this right is unaffected by the rule of sequestration of witnesses under Code § 38-1703. [Cits.] Thus, the disobedience of

1980In Baker v. State, 131 Ga. App. 48, 51 (2) ( 205 SE2d 79 ) (1974), this court held: "[W]hile there are many cases dealing with the court's discretionary power where sequestration has not properly been observed, the rule appears to be as stated in McCartney v. McCartney, 217 Ga. 200 (7), 201 ( 121 SE2d 785 ): `A party's right to have the testimony of any witness, when material to the assertion of his rights, is unabridged, except by the exceptions under Code § 38-1603, and this right is unaffected by the rule of sequestration of witnesses under Code § 38-1703. [Cits.] Thus, the disobedience of

11980–1980
Bush v. State green
gactapp · 1973
2 sentences

1977Under the cases of Stuart v. State, 123 Ga. App. 311 (1) ( 180 SE2d 581 ), and Bush v. State, 129 Ga. App. 160 (1) ( 199 SE2d 121 ), he contends it was reversible error for the trial court to permit this witness to testify.

1977Under the cases of Stuart v. State, 123 Ga. App. 311 (1) ( 180 SE2d 581 ), and Bush v. State, 129 Ga. App. 160 (1) ( 199 SE2d 121 ), he contends it was reversible error for the trial court to permit this witness to testify.

11977–1977
Stuart v. State green
gactapp · 1971
2 sentences

1977Under the cases of Stuart v. State, 123 Ga. App. 311 (1) ( 180 SE2d 581 ), and Bush v. State, 129 Ga. App. 160 (1) ( 199 SE2d 121 ), he contends it was reversible error for the trial court to permit this witness to testify.

1977Under the cases of Stuart v. State, 123 Ga. App. 311 (1) ( 180 SE2d 581 ), and Bush v. State, 129 Ga. App. 160 (1) ( 199 SE2d 121 ), he contends it was reversible error for the trial court to permit this witness to testify.

11977–1977

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check