Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1923–2022 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Shaw v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Burney v. State, 309 Ga. 273, 293 (5) (845 SE2d 625) (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted); see also, e.g., Shaw v. State, 83 Ga. 92, 98 (1) (9 SE 768) (1889) (“[W]here misconduct of a juror or of the jury is shown, the presumption is that the defendant has been injured, and 6 the onus is upon the State to remove this presumption by proper proof,” that is, by a “show[ing] beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not injured by the misconduct of the . . . jury.”). 2022Burney v. State, 309 Ga. 273, 293 (5) (845 SE2d 625) (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted); see also, e.g., Shaw v. State, 83 Ga. 92, 98 (1) (9 SE 768) (1889) (“[W]here misconduct of a juror or of the jury is shown, the presumption is that the defendant has been injured, and 6 the onus is upon the State to remove this presumption by proper proof,” that is, by a “show[ing] beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not injured by the misconduct of the . . . jury.”). | 3 | 6 |
Lockridge v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See generally Desverges v. Goette, 121 Ga. 65, 67 (3) ( 48 SE 693 ) (1904) (“The sanctity of the 12 fair and impartial jury is a central safeguard to a fair trial in our system of criminal justice.”7 As our Supreme Court recognized well over a century ago, when a jury is selected and sworn to try the criminally accused, “[the law] contemplates that no outside influence shall be brought to bear on the minds of the jury, and that nothing shall occur outside of the trial which shall disturb their minds in any way.”8 And where, as here, “misconduct of a juror or of the jury is shown,[9] the presum 2013See generally Desverges v. Goette, 121 Ga. 65, 67 (3) ( 48 SE 693 ) (1904) (“The sanctity of the 12 fair and impartial jury is a central safeguard to a fair trial in our system of criminal justice.”7 As our Supreme Court recognized well over a century ago, when a jury is selected and sworn to try the criminally accused, “[the law] contemplates that no outside influence shall be brought to bear on the minds of the jury, and that nothing shall occur outside of the trial which shall disturb their minds in any way.”8 And where, as here, “misconduct of a juror or of the jury is shown,[9] the presum | 3 | 3 |
Lamons v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See generally Desverges v. Goette, 121 Ga. 65, 67 (3) ( 48 SE 693 ) (1904) (“The sanctity of the 12 fair and impartial jury is a central safeguard to a fair trial in our system of criminal justice.”7 As our Supreme Court recognized well over a century ago, when a jury is selected and sworn to try the criminally accused, “[the law] contemplates that no outside influence shall be brought to bear on the minds of the jury, and that nothing shall occur outside of the trial which shall disturb their minds in any way.”8 And where, as here, “misconduct of a juror or of the jury is shown,[9] the presum 2013See generally Desverges v. Goette, 121 Ga. 65, 67 (3) ( 48 SE 693 ) (1904) (“The sanctity of the 12 fair and impartial jury is a central safeguard to a fair trial in our system of criminal justice.”7 As our Supreme Court recognized well over a century ago, when a jury is selected and sworn to try the criminally accused, “[the law] contemplates that no outside influence shall be brought to bear on the minds of the jury, and that nothing shall occur outside of the trial which shall disturb their minds in any way.”8 And where, as here, “misconduct of a juror or of the jury is shown,[9] the presum | 2 | 2 |
Lloyd v. the Stategreen2 sentences2018See Lockridge v. State , 260 Ga. 528 , 529, 397 S.E.2d 695 (1990) ; Lloyd v. State , 339 Ga. App. 1 , 7-9 (2), 792 S.E.2d 445 (2016) (reaffirming proposition that, in the criminal context, a presumption of prejudice arises upon a showing of juror misconduct). 2018See Lockridge v. State , 260 Ga. 528 , 529, 397 S.E.2d 695 (1990) ; Lloyd v. State , 339 Ga. App. 1 , 7-9 (2), 792 S.E.2d 445 (2016) (reaffirming proposition that, in the criminal context, a presumption of prejudice arises upon a showing of juror misconduct). | 1 | 2 |
Burney v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Burney v. State, 309 Ga. 273, 293 (5) (845 SE2d 625) (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted); see also, e.g., Shaw v. State, 83 Ga. 92, 98 (1) (9 SE 768) (1889) (“[W]here misconduct of a juror or of the jury is shown, the presumption is that the defendant has been injured, and 6 the onus is upon the State to remove this presumption by proper proof,” that is, by a “show[ing] beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not injured by the misconduct of the . . . jury.”). 2022Burney v. State, 309 Ga. 273, 293 (5) (845 SE2d 625) (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted); see also, e.g., Shaw v. State, 83 Ga. 92, 98 (1) (9 SE 768) (1889) (“[W]here misconduct of a juror or of the jury is shown, the presumption is that the defendant has been injured, and 6 the onus is upon the State to remove this presumption by proper proof,” that is, by a “show[ing] beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not injured by the misconduct of the . . . jury.”). | 1 | 1 |
Monroe v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See generally Desverges v. Goette, 121 Ga. 65, 67 (3) ( 48 SE 693 ) (1904) (“The sanctity of the 12 fair and impartial jury is a central safeguard to a fair trial in our system of criminal justice.”7 As our Supreme Court recognized well over a century ago, when a jury is selected and sworn to try the criminally accused, “[the law] contemplates that no outside influence shall be brought to bear on the minds of the jury, and that nothing shall occur outside of the trial which shall disturb their minds in any way.”8 And where, as here, “misconduct of a juror or of the jury is shown,[9] the presum | 1 | 1 |
Steele v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See generally Desverges v. Goette, 121 Ga. 65, 67 (3) ( 48 SE 693 ) (1904) (“The sanctity of the 12 fair and impartial jury is a central safeguard to a fair trial in our system of criminal justice.”7 As our Supreme Court recognized well over a century ago, when a jury is selected and sworn to try the criminally accused, “[the law] contemplates that no outside influence shall be brought to bear on the minds of the jury, and that nothing shall occur outside of the trial which shall disturb their minds in any way.”8 And where, as here, “misconduct of a juror or of the jury is shown,[9] the presum 2013See generally Desverges v. Goette, 121 Ga. 65, 67 (3) ( 48 SE 693 ) (1904) (“The sanctity of the 12 fair and impartial jury is a central safeguard to a fair trial in our system of criminal justice.”7 As our Supreme Court recognized well over a century ago, when a jury is selected and sworn to try the criminally accused, “[the law] contemplates that no outside influence shall be brought to bear on the minds of the jury, and that nothing shall occur outside of the trial which shall disturb their minds in any way.”8 And where, as here, “misconduct of a juror or of the jury is shown,[9] the presum | 1 | 1 |
Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Dichgreen1 sentence2013See generally Desverges v. Goette, 121 Ga. 65, 67 (3) ( 48 SE 693 ) (1904) (“The sanctity of the 12 fair and impartial jury is a central safeguard to a fair trial in our system of criminal justice.”7 As our Supreme Court recognized well over a century ago, when a jury is selected and sworn to try the criminally accused, “[the law] contemplates that no outside influence shall be brought to bear on the minds of the jury, and that nothing shall occur outside of the trial which shall disturb their minds in any way.”8 And where, as here, “misconduct of a juror or of the jury is shown,[9] the presum | 1 | 1 |
Brakelow Steamship Co. v. Westgreen1 sentence2013See generally Desverges v. Goette, 121 Ga. 65, 67 (3) ( 48 SE 693 ) (1904) (“The sanctity of the 12 fair and impartial jury is a central safeguard to a fair trial in our system of criminal justice.”7 As our Supreme Court recognized well over a century ago, when a jury is selected and sworn to try the criminally accused, “[the law] contemplates that no outside influence shall be brought to bear on the minds of the jury, and that nothing shall occur outside of the trial which shall disturb their minds in any way.”8 And where, as here, “misconduct of a juror or of the jury is shown,[9] the presum | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See generally Desverges v. Goette, 121 Ga. 65, 67 (3) ( 48 SE 693 ) (1904) (“The sanctity of the 12 fair and impartial jury is a central safeguard to a fair trial in our system of criminal justice.”7 As our Supreme Court recognized well over a century ago, when a jury is selected and sworn to try the criminally accused, “[the law] contemplates that no outside influence shall be brought to bear on the minds of the jury, and that nothing shall occur outside of the trial which shall disturb their minds in any way.”8 And where, as here, “misconduct of a juror or of the jury is shown,[9] the presum 2013See generally Desverges v. Goette, 121 Ga. 65, 67 (3) ( 48 SE 693 ) (1904) (“The sanctity of the 12 fair and impartial jury is a central safeguard to a fair trial in our system of criminal justice.”7 As our Supreme Court recognized well over a century ago, when a jury is selected and sworn to try the criminally accused, “[the law] contemplates that no outside influence shall be brought to bear on the minds of the jury, and that nothing shall occur outside of the trial which shall disturb their minds in any way.”8 And where, as here, “misconduct of a juror or of the jury is shown,[9] the presum | 1 | 1 |
Kennebrew v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See generally Desverges v. Goette, 121 Ga. 65, 67 (3) ( 48 SE 693 ) (1904) (“The sanctity of the 12 fair and impartial jury is a central safeguard to a fair trial in our system of criminal justice.”7 As our Supreme Court recognized well over a century ago, when a jury is selected and sworn to try the criminally accused, “[the law] contemplates that no outside influence shall be brought to bear on the minds of the jury, and that nothing shall occur outside of the trial which shall disturb their minds in any way.”8 And where, as here, “misconduct of a juror or of the jury is shown,[9] the presum 2013See generally Desverges v. Goette, 121 Ga. 65, 67 (3) ( 48 SE 693 ) (1904) (“The sanctity of the 12 fair and impartial jury is a central safeguard to a fair trial in our system of criminal justice.”7 As our Supreme Court recognized well over a century ago, when a jury is selected and sworn to try the criminally accused, “[the law] contemplates that no outside influence shall be brought to bear on the minds of the jury, and that nothing shall occur outside of the trial which shall disturb their minds in any way.”8 And where, as here, “misconduct of a juror or of the jury is shown,[9] the presum | 1 | 1 |
Henderson v. Stategreen2 sentences1984See Blount v. State, 214 Ga. 433 (4) ( 105 SE2d 304 ) (1958); see also Henderson v. State, 251 Ga. 398, 403 ( 306 SE2d 645 ) (1983). 1984See Blount v. State, 214 Ga. 433 (4) ( 105 SE2d 304 ) (1958); see also Henderson v. State, 251 Ga. 398, 403 ( 306 SE2d 645 ) (1983). | 1 | 1 |
Blount v. Stategreen2 sentences1984See Blount v. State, 214 Ga. 433 (4) ( 105 SE2d 304 ) (1958); see also Henderson v. State, 251 Ga. 398, 403 ( 306 SE2d 645 ) (1983). 1984See Blount v. State, 214 Ga. 433 (4) ( 105 SE2d 304 ) (1958); see also Henderson v. State, 251 Ga. 398, 403 ( 306 SE2d 645 ) (1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Quattlebaum v. State
green
2 sentences1923As to the first proposition, this court held- in Quattlebaum v. State, 119 Ga. 433 (7) ( 46 S. E. 677 ): “The defendant, an epileptic, was committed to the asylum, there to remain until restored to sound mind and right reason. 1923As to the first proposition, this court held- in Quattlebaum v. State, 119 Ga. 433 (7) ( 46 S. E. 677 ): “The defendant, an epileptic, was committed to the asylum, there to remain until restored to sound mind and right reason. | 1 | 1923–1923 |