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.
8 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 2016–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cushenberry v. Stategreen2 sentences2020And “[i]n any event, when a defendant alleges a factually specific claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must show actual misconduct and demonstrable prejudice to his right to a fair 36 trial in order to reverse his conviction.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Cushenberry v. State, 300 Ga. 190, 195 (2) (b) ( 794 SE2d 165 ) (2016). 2020And “[i]n any event, when a defendant alleges a factually specific claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must show actual misconduct and demonstrable prejudice to his right to a fair 36 trial in order to reverse his conviction.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Cushenberry v. State, 300 Ga. 190, 195 (2) (b) ( 794 SE2d 165 ) (2016). | 2 | 3 |
Williams v. the Stategreen2 sentences2016In any event, “when a defendant alleges a factually specific claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must show actual misconduct and demonstrable prejudice to his right to a fair trial in order to reverse his conviction.” Williams v. State, 328 Ga. App. 876, 881 ( 763 SE2d 261 ) (2014). 2016In any event, “when a defendant alleges a factually specific claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must show actual misconduct and demonstrable prejudice to his right to a fair trial in order to reverse his conviction.” Williams v. State, 328 Ga. App. 876, 881 ( 763 SE2d 261 ) (2014). | 2 | 2 |
Pierce v. Stategreen1 sentence2026“When a defendant alleges a factually specific claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must show actual misconduct and demonstrable prejudice to his right to a fair trial in order to reverse his conviction.” Pierce, 319 Ga. at 864 (cleaned up). | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Stategreen2 sentences2024“The knowing use of material, false evidence by the State in a criminal prosecution violates due process, even where the falsehood bears upon the witness’s credibility rather than directly upon the defendant’s guilt.” Harris v. State, 309 Ga. 599, 607 (2) (c) ( 847 SE2d 563 ) (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). “[W]hen a defendant alleges a factually specific claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must show actual misconduct and demonstrable 44 prejudice to his right to a fair trial in order to reverse his conviction.” Horton v. State, 310 Ga. 310, 326 (4) ( 849 SE2d 382 ) (20 2024“The knowing use of material, false evidence by the State in a criminal prosecution violates due process, even where the falsehood bears upon the witness’s credibility rather than directly upon the defendant’s guilt.” Harris v. State, 309 Ga. 599, 607 (2) (c) ( 847 SE2d 563 ) (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). “[W]hen a defendant alleges a factually specific claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must show actual misconduct and demonstrable 44 prejudice to his right to a fair trial in order to reverse his conviction.” Horton v. State, 310 Ga. 310, 326 (4) ( 849 SE2d 382 ) (20 | 1 | 1 |
Horton v. Stategreen2 sentences2024“The knowing use of material, false evidence by the State in a criminal prosecution violates due process, even where the falsehood bears upon the witness’s credibility rather than directly upon the defendant’s guilt.” Harris v. State, 309 Ga. 599, 607 (2) (c) ( 847 SE2d 563 ) (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). “[W]hen a defendant alleges a factually specific claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must show actual misconduct and demonstrable 44 prejudice to his right to a fair trial in order to reverse his conviction.” Horton v. State, 310 Ga. 310, 326 (4) ( 849 SE2d 382 ) (20 2024“The knowing use of material, false evidence by the State in a criminal prosecution violates due process, even where the falsehood bears upon the witness’s credibility rather than directly upon the defendant’s guilt.” Harris v. State, 309 Ga. 599, 607 (2) (c) ( 847 SE2d 563 ) (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). “[W]hen a defendant alleges a factually specific claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must show actual misconduct and demonstrable 44 prejudice to his right to a fair trial in order to reverse his conviction.” Horton v. State, 310 Ga. 310, 326 (4) ( 849 SE2d 382 ) (20 | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. Stategreen2 sentences2019So even assuming there was an order based on the State’s agreement, that order was not violated. (d) Finally, Appellant argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by willfully violating the purported trial court order and the State’s agreement not to discuss Barry at trial. “[W]hen a defendant alleges a factually specific claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must show actual misconduct and demonstrable prejudice to his right to a fair trial in order to reverse his conviction.” Brooks v. State, 305 Ga. 600, 606 ( 826 SE2d 45 ) (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2019So even assuming there was an order based on the State’s agreement, that order was not violated. (d) Finally, Appellant argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by willfully violating the purported trial court order and the State’s agreement not to discuss Barry at trial. “[W]hen a defendant alleges a factually specific claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must show actual misconduct and demonstrable prejudice to his right to a fair trial in order to reverse his conviction.” Brooks v. State, 305 Ga. 600, 606 ( 826 SE2d 45 ) (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.