right to counsel violation in Georgia

2018See Higuera-Hernandez , 289 Ga. at 557 (2), 714 S.E.2d 236 (to establish a right to counsel violation, "the defendant must demonstrate that the police and their informant took some action, beyond merely listening, that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks" (citation omitted) ). (b) The trial court did not err in admitting Watkins's statements against Kemp and Hogans as co-conspirator statements under OCGA § 24-8-801 (d) (2) (E).

2018See Higuera-Hernandez , 289 Ga. at 557 (2), 714 S.E.2d 236 (to establish a right to counsel violation, "the defendant must demonstrate that the police and their informant took some action, beyond merely listening, that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks" (citation omitted) ). (b) The trial court did not err in admitting Watkins's statements against Kemp and Hogans as co-conspirator statements under OCGA § 24-8-801 (d) (2) (E).

2023See Styles v. State, 309 Ga. 463, 469 n.6 (847 SE2d 325) (2020) (holding that any error in failing to comply with Lowery’s procedural rule was harmless and saying that “[s]ome of us have questions as to the propriety of our unilateral pronouncement of a new rule of procedure in Lowery, rather than through the rule-making process established by the Georgia Constitution”). 41 when addressing the jury notes regarding the definitions of the jury charges, watching the surveillance footage, and what would happen if the jury could not reach agreement on some of the charges against Appellants.

2023See Styles v. State, 309 Ga. 463, 469 n.6 (847 SE2d 325) (2020) (holding that any error in failing to comply with Lowery’s procedural rule was harmless and saying that “[s]ome of us have questions as to the propriety of our unilateral pronouncement of a new rule of procedure in Lowery, rather than through the rule-making process established by the Georgia Constitution”). 41 when addressing the jury notes regarding the definitions of the jury charges, watching the surveillance footage, and what would happen if the jury could not reach agreement on some of the charges against Appellants.

2020Although the majority conducts a waiver analysis under the traditional standard, such analysis is not sufficient in a right-to- counsel case. “[A] heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel.” Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U. S. 675, 680 ( 108 SCt 2093 , 100 LE2d 704) (1988) (quoting Miranda, 384 U. S. at 475 ).

2020Although the majority conducts a waiver analysis under the traditional standard, such analysis is not sufficient in a right-to- counsel case. “[A] heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel.” Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U. S. 675, 680 ( 108 SCt 2093 , 100 LE2d 704) (1988) (quoting Miranda, 384 U. S. at 475 ).