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 1953–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Waller v. Georgiagreen1 sentence2010See Waller v. Georgia, 467 U. S. 39 (104 SC 2210, 81 LE2d 31) (1984). | 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. Nejad
green
2 sentences2018Thus, Serdula posits that "an additional hearing is required to determine the accuracy of the psychological report that is a part of the trial record." A careful review of Serdula's argument, however, reveals that he is not contending that the certified record before us is incorrect or that what transpired below is not properly reflected in the record. 6 Compare State v. Nejad , 286 Ga. 695 , 696-697 (1), 690 S.E.2d 846 (2010) (certified trial transcript did not reflect that the trial judge informed defendant of his right to testify and that the decision whether to testify was to be made after 2018Thus, Serdula posits that "an additional hearing is required to determine the accuracy of the psychological report that is a part of the trial record." A careful review of Serdula's argument, however, reveals that he is not contending that the certified record before us is incorrect or that what transpired below is not properly reflected in the record. 6 Compare State v. Nejad , 286 Ga. 695 , 696-697 (1), 690 S.E.2d 846 (2010) (certified trial transcript did not reflect that the trial judge informed defendant of his right to testify and that the decision whether to testify was to be made after | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Pullen v. State
green
2 sentences2018Thus, Serdula posits that "an additional hearing is required to determine the accuracy of the psychological report that is a part of the trial record." A careful review of Serdula's argument, however, reveals that he is not contending that the certified record before us is incorrect or that what transpired below is not properly reflected in the record. 6 Compare State v. Nejad , 286 Ga. 695 , 696-697 (1), 690 S.E.2d 846 (2010) (certified trial transcript did not reflect that the trial judge informed defendant of his right to testify and that the decision whether to testify was to be made after 2018Thus, Serdula posits that "an additional hearing is required to determine the accuracy of the psychological report that is a part of the trial record." A careful review of Serdula's argument, however, reveals that he is not contending that the certified record before us is incorrect or that what transpired below is not properly reflected in the record. 6 Compare State v. Nejad , 286 Ga. 695 , 696-697 (1), 690 S.E.2d 846 (2010) (certified trial transcript did not reflect that the trial judge informed defendant of his right to testify and that the decision whether to testify was to be made after | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Stargell v. State
neutral
1 sentence1984“In Georgia, a criminal defendant is constitutionally guaranteed the right to be present at all stages of his trial. [Cits.] As with any constitutional right, this one may be waived by the defendant. [Cit.] However, that is not to say that a defendant has an absolute right to waive his right to be present at trial. [Cit.] ... [A] criminal defendant’s right to be present at his trial does not include a concomitant right of absence. [Cits.] Where identification of the defendant by a witness is contemplated by the prosecution, the state is entitled to demand the presence of the defendant. [Cits.] | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Lewis v. State
green
1 sentence1984“In Georgia, a criminal defendant is constitutionally guaranteed the right to be present at all stages of his trial. [Cits.] As with any constitutional right, this one may be waived by the defendant. [Cit.] However, that is not to say that a defendant has an absolute right to waive his right to be present at trial. [Cit.] ... [A] criminal defendant’s right to be present at his trial does not include a concomitant right of absence. [Cits.] Where identification of the defendant by a witness is contemplated by the prosecution, the state is entitled to demand the presence of the defendant. [Cits.] | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Green v. State
green
2 sentences1971Green v. State, 223 Ga. 611 (5) ( 157 SE2d 257 ). 6. 1971Green v. State, 223 Ga. 611 (5) ( 157 SE2d 257 ). 6. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Haiman & Brother v. Moses & Gerrard
green
1 sentence1953“Generally, when a party permits proceedings to be had, in the progress of his casé, without making any objection, the court will hold him to have waived the objection, and will not relieve him against the consequences of the proceeding, to which he did not object at the proper time.” Haiman & Bro. v. Moses & Gerrard, 39 Ga. 708, 712 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
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.