courtroom after rule (Georgia) · Go Syfert
← Georgia issues

courtroom after rule in Georgia

12 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2021 1 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 (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Mitchell v. Stategreen
ga · 2012 · cited in 2 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012“However, it is well within the trial court’s discretion to permit the State’s lead investigator to remain in the courtroom despite invocation of the rule of sequestration where the State shows his presence is necessary for the orderly presentation of evidence.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Mitchell v. State, 290 Ga. 490, 491 (3) ( 722 SE2d 705 ) (2012).

2012“However, it is well within the trial court’s discretion to permit the State’s lead investigator to remain in the courtroom despite invocation of the rule of sequestration where the State shows his presence is necessary for the orderly presentation of evidence.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Mitchell v. State, 290 Ga. 490, 491 (3) ( 722 SE2d 705 ) (2012).

22
Pleas v. Stategreen
ga · 1998 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
2 sentences

2021A trial judge has the power to maintain order in the courtroom, Pleas v. State, 268 Ga. 889, 891 (3) ( 495 SE2d 4 ) (1998), and 2 it is within the bounds of the trial court’s authority to remove a defendant from the courtroom after warning him or her that continued disruptive behavior will result in removal.

2021A trial judge has the power to maintain order in the courtroom, Pleas v. State, 268 Ga. 889, 891 (3) ( 495 SE2d 4 ) (1998), and 2 it is within the bounds of the trial court’s authority to remove a defendant from the courtroom after warning him or her that continued disruptive behavior will result in removal.

11
Weaver v. Stategreen
ga · 2011 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
2 sentences

2021Weaver v. State, 288 Ga. 540, 542 (3) ( 705 SE2d 627 ) (2011).

2021Weaver v. State, 288 Ga. 540, 542 (3) ( 705 SE2d 627 ) (2011).

11
Edwards v. Stategreen
gactapp · 1984 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992Edwards v. State, 171 Ga. App. 264, 265 ( 319 SE2d 101 ) (1984).

1992Edwards v. State, 171 Ga. App. 264, 265 ( 319 SE2d 101 ) (1984).

11
Parham v. Stategreen
gactapp · 1975 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985
2 sentences

1985Parham v. State, 135 Ga. App. 315, 319 ( 217 SE2d 493 ) (1975).

1985Parham v. State, 135 Ga. App. 315, 319 ( 217 SE2d 493 ) (1975).

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 (12)

CaseCitedYears
Childs v. State green
ga · 1987
2 sentences

1994Childs v. State, 257 Ga. 243 (11) ( 357 SE2d 48 ) (1987). 8.

1994Childs v. State, 257 Ga. 243 (11) ( 357 SE2d 48 ) (1987). 8.

11994–1994
Ruffin v. State green
ga · 1979
1 sentence

1981This same argument was raised in Ruffin v. State, 243 Ga. 95 , supra, and decided adversely to appellant’s position.

11981–1981
Fuller v. State neutral
gactapp · 1911
1 sentence

1979In Collins v. State, 10 Ga. App. 34 (1) ( 72 SE 526 ) (1911), it was held that the failure of the defendant and his attorney to call the attention of the court to the presence of a witness in the courtroom after the rule had been invoked was a waiver of the right to strict adherence to the rule.

11979–1979
Wooten v. State neutral
gactapp · 1911
1 sentence

1979In Collins v. State, 10 Ga. App. 34 (1) ( 72 SE 526 ) (1911), it was held that the failure of the defendant and his attorney to call the attention of the court to the presence of a witness in the courtroom after the rule had been invoked was a waiver of the right to strict adherence to the rule.

11979–1979
Dye v. State green
ga · 1964
2 sentences

1978Appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in allowing both the victim-prosecutrix and the investigating officer to remain in the courtroom after the rule of sequestration had been invoked is controlled adversely by Dye v. State, 220 Ga. 113 (2) ( 137 SE2d 465 ).

1978Appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in allowing both the victim-prosecutrix and the investigating officer to remain in the courtroom after the rule of sequestration had been invoked is controlled adversely by Dye v. State, 220 Ga. 113 (2) ( 137 SE2d 465 ).

11978–1978
Larkins v. State green
ga · 1973
2 sentences

1977The agent was listed as a witness for the state and the appellant, acting pursuant to Larkins v. State, 230 Ga. 418 (1) ( 197 SE2d 367 ), objected at the outset to the presence of the agent.

1977The agent was listed as a witness for the state and the appellant, acting pursuant to Larkins v. State, 230 Ga. 418 (1) ( 197 SE2d 367 ), objected at the outset to the presence of the agent.

11977–1977
McNeal v. State green
ga · 1972
1 sentence

1975Jarrell v. State, 234 Ga. 410 (6); McNeal v. State, 228 Ga. 633 (4) ( 187 SE2d 271 ); Fountain v. State, 228 Ga. 306 (3) ( 185 SE2d 62 ); Kennemore v. State, 222 Ga. 362 (3) ( 149 SE2d 791 ); Spurlin v. State, 222 Ga. 179 ( 149 SE2d 315 ).

11975–1975
Glenn v. State green
ga · 1949
2 sentences

1975Glenn v. State, 205 Ga. 32 ( 52 SE2d 319 ) (1949).

1975Glenn v. State, 205 Ga. 32 ( 52 SE2d 319 ) (1949).

11975–1975
Jarrell v. State green
ga · 1975
1 sentence

1975Jarrell v. State, 234 Ga. 410 (6); McNeal v. State, 228 Ga. 633 (4) ( 187 SE2d 271 ); Fountain v. State, 228 Ga. 306 (3) ( 185 SE2d 62 ); Kennemore v. State, 222 Ga. 362 (3) ( 149 SE2d 791 ); Spurlin v. State, 222 Ga. 179 ( 149 SE2d 315 ).

11975–1975
Fountain v. State green
ga · 1971
2 sentences

1975Jarrell v. State, 234 Ga. 410 (6); McNeal v. State, 228 Ga. 633 (4) ( 187 SE2d 271 ); Fountain v. State, 228 Ga. 306 (3) ( 185 SE2d 62 ); Kennemore v. State, 222 Ga. 362 (3) ( 149 SE2d 791 ); Spurlin v. State, 222 Ga. 179 ( 149 SE2d 315 ).

1975Jarrell v. State, 234 Ga. 410 (6); McNeal v. State, 228 Ga. 633 (4) ( 187 SE2d 271 ); Fountain v. State, 228 Ga. 306 (3) ( 185 SE2d 62 ); Kennemore v. State, 222 Ga. 362 (3) ( 149 SE2d 791 ); Spurlin v. State, 222 Ga. 179 ( 149 SE2d 315 ).

11975–1975
Kennemore v. State green
ga · 1966
2 sentences

1975Jarrell v. State, 234 Ga. 410 (6); McNeal v. State, 228 Ga. 633 (4) ( 187 SE2d 271 ); Fountain v. State, 228 Ga. 306 (3) ( 185 SE2d 62 ); Kennemore v. State, 222 Ga. 362 (3) ( 149 SE2d 791 ); Spurlin v. State, 222 Ga. 179 ( 149 SE2d 315 ).

1975Jarrell v. State, 234 Ga. 410 (6); McNeal v. State, 228 Ga. 633 (4) ( 187 SE2d 271 ); Fountain v. State, 228 Ga. 306 (3) ( 185 SE2d 62 ); Kennemore v. State, 222 Ga. 362 (3) ( 149 SE2d 791 ); Spurlin v. State, 222 Ga. 179 ( 149 SE2d 315 ).

11975–1975
Spurlin v. State green
ga · 1966
2 sentences

1975Jarrell v. State, 234 Ga. 410 (6); McNeal v. State, 228 Ga. 633 (4) ( 187 SE2d 271 ); Fountain v. State, 228 Ga. 306 (3) ( 185 SE2d 62 ); Kennemore v. State, 222 Ga. 362 (3) ( 149 SE2d 791 ); Spurlin v. State, 222 Ga. 179 ( 149 SE2d 315 ).

1975Jarrell v. State, 234 Ga. 410 (6); McNeal v. State, 228 Ga. 633 (4) ( 187 SE2d 271 ); Fountain v. State, 228 Ga. 306 (3) ( 185 SE2d 62 ); Kennemore v. State, 222 Ga. 362 (3) ( 149 SE2d 791 ); Spurlin v. State, 222 Ga. 179 ( 149 SE2d 315 ).

11975–1975

Where else courts name it

GA 12 (1975–2021) CA 4 (2016–2020) TN 2 (1975–1978) MS 2 (1954–1957) AL 2 (1981–2009) OK 2 (1973–1979)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check