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.
5 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Presenting this defense while rejecting an antagonistic defense based on the potential testimony of a single self-defense witness, especially when the evidence shows that the victim was shot in the back, does not reflect a strategy that was “so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have followed such a course,” Thomas, 311 Ga. at 714 (2) (a), and the trial court did not clearly err in finding that Williams failed to show that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient. 2023Presenting this defense while rejecting an antagonistic defense based on the potential testimony of a single self-defense witness, especially when the evidence shows that the victim was shot in the back, does not reflect a strategy that was “so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have followed such a course,” Thomas, 311 Ga. at 714 (2) (a) (citation and punctuation omitted), and the trial court did not clearly err in finding that Williams failed to show that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient. | 1 | 1 |
Muckle v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Muckle v. State, 302 Ga. 675, 680 (2) (808 SE2d 713) (2017) (holding that counsel was not deficient when he made a reasonable strategic decision not to call a witness whose testimony that he did not see the defendant on the night of the crimes would 37 have been inconsistent with the defendant’s statements and would have conflicted with the defense strategy of convincing the jury that the defendant was merely present at the crime scene); Carr v. State, 301 Ga. 128, 129-130 (2) (a) (799 SE2d 175) (2017) (holding that it was a “matter of trial strategy and tactics within the bounds of reason 2023See Muckle v. State, 302 Ga. 675, 680 (2) (808 SE2d 713) (2017) (holding that counsel was not deficient when he made a reasonable strategic decision not to call a witness whose testimony that he did not see the defendant on the night of the crimes would 37 have been inconsistent with the defendant’s statements and would have conflicted with the defense strategy of convincing the jury that the defendant was merely present at the crime scene); Carr v. State, 301 Ga. 128, 129-130 (2) (a) (799 SE2d 175) (2017) (holding that it was a “matter of trial strategy and tactics within the bounds of reason | 1 | 1 |
Carr v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Muckle v. State, 302 Ga. 675, 680 (2) (808 SE2d 713) (2017) (holding that counsel was not deficient when he made a reasonable strategic decision not to call a witness whose testimony that he did not see the defendant on the night of the crimes would 37 have been inconsistent with the defendant’s statements and would have conflicted with the defense strategy of convincing the jury that the defendant was merely present at the crime scene); Carr v. State, 301 Ga. 128, 129-130 (2) (a) (799 SE2d 175) (2017) (holding that it was a “matter of trial strategy and tactics within the bounds of reason 2023See Muckle v. State, 302 Ga. 675, 680 (2) (808 SE2d 713) (2017) (holding that counsel was not deficient when he made a reasonable strategic decision not to call a witness whose testimony that he did not see the defendant on the night of the crimes would 37 have been inconsistent with the defendant’s statements and would have conflicted with the defense strategy of convincing the jury that the defendant was merely present at the crime scene); Carr v. State, 301 Ga. 128, 129-130 (2) (a) (799 SE2d 175) (2017) (holding that it was a “matter of trial strategy and tactics within the bounds of reason | 1 | 1 |
Appling v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Appling v. State, 281 Ga. 590, 591 ( 642 SE2d 37 ) (2007) (holding that the defendant failed to show harm from the fact that his co-defendant testified to an antagonistic defense, because at a separate trial the co-defendant could have offered the same testimony). 2011See Appling v. State, 281 Ga. 590, 591 ( 642 SE2d 37 ) (2007) (holding that the defendant failed to show harm from the fact that his co-defendant testified to an antagonistic defense, because at a separate trial the co-defendant could have offered the same testimony). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Green v. State
green
2 sentences2026“Whether to seek severance is a matter of trial strategy, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, counsel’s decisions are presumed to be strategic and thus insufficient to support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” Green v. State, 302 Ga. 816 , 35 819 (2018) (citation omitted). 2026“Whether to seek severance is a matter of trial strategy, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, counsel’s decisions are presumed to be strategic and thus insufficient to support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” Green v. State, 302 Ga. 816 , 35 819 (2018) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2026–2026 |
Nanthabouthdy v. State
green
1 sentence2001Nanthabouthdy, supra. Frazier has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to sever. 6. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.