7 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hill v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Mills, 308 Ga. at 560 (2); Hill, 263 Ga. at 41 (8). 2021See Mills, 308 Ga. at 560 (2); Hill, 263 Ga. at 41 (8). | 3 | 3 |
Semega v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Id. (citations and punctuation omitted). “[B]oth the need for investigation and the possibility of harmful error are heightened when a jury has begun deliberations or when a jury is deadlocked.” Semega v. State, 302 Ga. App. 879, 881 (1) ( 691 SE2d 923 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2020Id. (citations and punctuation omitted). “[B]oth the need for investigation and the possibility of harmful error are heightened when a jury has begun deliberations or when a jury is deadlocked.” Semega v. State, 302 Ga. App. 879, 881 (1) ( 691 SE2d 923 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Ramos v. Louisianagreen2 sentences2022And “because removing a dissenting juror when the jury is deadlocked risks violating a defendant’s right to a unanimous verdict, a trial judge must exercise the utmost care in determining that good cause exists before removing the juror.” Id. at 37 (2) (citing Ramos v. Louisiana, __ U.S. __ (140 SCt 1390, 1397, 206 LEd2d 583) (2020); and United States v. Brown, 996 F3d 1171, 19 1184 (11th Cir. 2021) (en banc)).9 Georgia appellate decisions reviewing the removal of jurors during deliberations reveal a general rule for the removal of holdout jurors during deliberations: such a juror may be remov 2022And “because removing a dissenting juror when the jury is deadlocked risks violating a defendant’s right to a unanimous verdict, a trial judge must exercise the utmost care in determining that good cause exists before removing the juror.” Id. at 37 (2) (citing Ramos v. Louisiana, __ U.S. __ (140 SCt 1390, 1397, 206 LEd2d 583) (2020); and United States v. Brown, 996 F3d 1171, 19 1184 (11th Cir. 2021) (en banc)).9 Georgia appellate decisions reviewing the removal of jurors during deliberations reveal a general rule for the removal of holdout jurors during deliberations: such a juror may be remov | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Corrinne Browngreen2 sentences2022And “because removing a dissenting juror when the jury is deadlocked risks violating a defendant’s right to a unanimous verdict, a trial judge must exercise the utmost care in determining that good cause exists before removing the juror.” Id. at 37 (2) (citing Ramos v. Louisiana, __ U.S. __ (140 SCt 1390, 1397, 206 LEd2d 583) (2020); and United States v. Brown, 996 F3d 1171, 19 1184 (11th Cir. 2021) (en banc)).9 Georgia appellate decisions reviewing the removal of jurors during deliberations reveal a general rule for the removal of holdout jurors during deliberations: such a juror may be remov 2022And “because removing a dissenting juror when the jury is deadlocked risks violating a defendant’s right to a unanimous verdict, a trial judge must exercise the utmost care in determining that good cause exists before removing the juror.” Id. at 37 (2) (citing Ramos v. Louisiana, __ U. S. __ ( 140 SCt 1390, 1397 , 206 LE2d 583) (2020); and United States v. Brown, 996 F3d 1171, 1184 (11th Cir. 2021) (en banc)).9 9 The dissent cites our case law for the general proposition that a criminal defendant has no vested interest in the service of any particular juror. | 1 | 1 |
Mills v. Stategreen2 sentences2021(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Mills v. State, 308 Ga. 558, 560 (2) (842 SE2d 284) (2020). 2021(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Mills v. State, 308 Ga. 558, 560 (2) (842 SE2d 284) (2020). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Arnold
green
1 sentence2020Id. (citations and punctuation omitted). “[B]oth the need for investigation and the possibility of harmful error are heightened when a jury has begun deliberations or when a jury is deadlocked.” Semega v. State, 302 Ga. App. 879, 881 (1) ( 691 SE2d 923 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Herring v. State
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Scott v. State
green
1 sentence1997See Hill v. State, 263 Ga. 37, 41 (8) ( 427 SE2d 770 ) (1993); Scott, supra; Stokes v. State, 204 Ga. *812 App. 141, 142 (1) ( 418 SE2d 419 ) (1992). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Stokes v. State
green
1 sentence1997See Hill v. State, 263 Ga. 37, 41 (8) ( 427 SE2d 770 ) (1993); Scott, supra; Stokes v. State, 204 Ga. *812 App. 141, 142 (1) ( 418 SE2d 419 ) (1992). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.