5 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1943–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cobb v. Atlanta Coach Co.green2 sentences1943See, in this connection, Cobb v. Atlanta Coach Co., 46 Ga. App. 633 ( 168 S. E. 126 ); Turner v. State, supra. Thus, if the classification in the Cyclopedic Law Dictionary, supra, be correct, a juror may be objected to for partiality, by a challenge “for principal cause” or a challenge “to the favor.” To illustrate: an opinion finally and fully made up and expressed, which the juror admits could not be changed by evidence, and nothr ing appearing to the contrary, would subject the juror to a challenge for principal cause; for the juror could be conclusively presumed from partiality to be incap 1943See, in this connection, Cobb v. Atlanta Coach Co., 46 Ga. App. 633 ( 168 S. E. 126 ); Turner v. State, supra. Thus, if the classification in the Cyclopedic Law Dictionary, supra, be correct, a juror may be objected to for partiality, by a challenge “for principal cause” or a challenge “to the favor.” To illustrate: an opinion finally and fully made up and expressed, which the juror admits could not be changed by evidence, and nothr ing appearing to the contrary, would subject the juror to a challenge for principal cause; for the juror could be conclusively presumed from partiality to be incap | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Napue v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2022The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in turn denied his request for a certificate of appealability. (c) Second State Habeas Petition (i) In 2017, Watkins filed a second state habeas petition, raising three claims based on evidence newly discovered by his legal team: (1) a juror-misconduct claim based on an independent drive test conducted by a juror to test the State’s theory against the cell- phone evidence presented; (2) a Brady4 claim based on a .22-caliber bullet that was found inside the dog found near Dawkins’s grave but never turned over to the defense team; and (3) a Napu 2022The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in turn denied his request for a certificate of appealability. (c) Second State Habeas Petition (i) In 2017, Watkins filed a second state habeas petition, raising three claims based on evidence newly discovered by his legal team: (1) a juror-misconduct claim based on an independent drive test conducted by a juror to test the State’s theory against the cell- phone evidence presented; (2) a Brady4 claim based on a .22-caliber bullet that was found inside the dog found near Dawkins’s grave but never turned over to the defense team; and (3) a Napu | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2022The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in turn denied his request for a certificate of appealability. (c) Second State Habeas Petition (i) In 2017, Watkins filed a second state habeas petition, raising three claims based on evidence newly discovered by his legal team: (1) a juror-misconduct claim based on an independent drive test conducted by a juror to test the State’s theory against the cell- phone evidence presented; (2) a Brady4 claim based on a .22-caliber bullet that was found inside the dog found near Dawkins’s grave but never turned over to the defense team; and (3) a Napu 2022The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in turn denied his request for a certificate of appealability. (c) Second State Habeas Petition (i) In 2017, Watkins filed a second state habeas petition, raising three claims based on evidence newly discovered by his legal team: (1) a juror-misconduct claim based on an independent drive test conducted by a juror to test the State’s theory against the cell- phone evidence presented; (2) a Brady4 claim based on a .22-caliber bullet that was found inside the dog found near Dawkins’s grave but never turned over to the defense team; and (3) a Napu | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Georgia v. McCollum
green
2 sentences2020Griffin also argues that the trial court erred in reseating a juror on whom the defense had used one of its peremptory strikes after the State challenged the strike under Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 ( 112 SCt 2348 , 120 LE2d 33) (1992). 2020Griffin also argues that the trial court erred in reseating a juror on whom the defense had used one of its peremptory strikes after the State challenged the strike under Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 ( 112 SCt 2348 , 120 LE2d 33) (1992). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Hutcheson v. State
green
2 sentences1991The majority would disqualify the juror under challenge for principal cause, that is, because of her employment, she was automatically disqualified. 4 This expands the holding in Hutcheson v. State, 246 Ga. 13 ( 268 SE2d 643 ) (1980), to equate employees of district attorneys with full-time police officers. 1991The majority would disqualify the juror under challenge for principal cause, that is, because of her employment, she was automatically disqualified. 4 This expands the holding in Hutcheson v. State, 246 Ga. 13 ( 268 SE2d 643 ) (1980), to equate employees of district attorneys with full-time police officers. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Witherspoon v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1983Godfrey asserts that excluding this juror was error, citing Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510 (88 SC 1770, 20 LE2d 776) (1968). 1983Godfrey asserts that excluding this juror was error, citing Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510 (88 SC 1770, 20 LE2d 776) (1968). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.