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 1986–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
King v. Stategreen2 sentences2002The law is clear that “if it appears that a witness intends to claim the privilege as to essentially all questions, the court may, in its discretion, refuse to allow him to take the stand.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) King v. State, 202 Ga. App. 817, 819 (2) ( 415 SE2d 684 ) (1992). 2002The law is clear that “if it appears that a witness intends to claim the privilege as to essentially all questions, the court may, in its discretion, refuse to allow him to take the stand.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) King v. State, 202 Ga. App. 817, 819 (2) ( 415 SE2d 684 ) (1992). | 3 | 3 |
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences1995And “[e]ven assuming, without deciding, that the topics on which [defendant] sought [the co-defendant’s] testimony were relevant to the issues before the jury, the Supreme Court has adopted the federal rule that ‘ “(i)f it appears that a witness intends to claim the privilege as to essentially all questions, the court may, in its discretion, refuse to allow him to take the stand. . . .” (Cit.)’ Davis v. State, 255 Ga. 598, 604 (7) ( 340 SE2d 869 ) (1986). 1995And “[e]ven assuming, without deciding, that the topics on which [defendant] sought [the co-defendant’s] testimony were relevant to the issues before the jury, the Supreme Court has adopted the federal rule that ‘ “(i)f it appears that a witness intends to claim the privilege as to essentially all questions, the court may, in its discretion, refuse to allow him to take the stand. . . .” (Cit.)’ Davis v. State, 255 Ga. 598, 604 (7) ( 340 SE2d 869 ) (1986). | 3 | 3 |
Dodd v. Stategreen2 sentences1997Dodd v. State, 236 Ga. 572, 575 ( 224 SE2d 408 ) (1976); King v. State, 202 Ga. App. 817, 819 ( 415 SE2d 684 ) (1992). “ Tf it appears that a witness intends to claim the privilege as to essentially all questions, the court may, in its discretion, refuse to allow him to take the stand. 1997Dodd v. State, 236 Ga. 572, 575 ( 224 SE2d 408 ) (1976); King v. State, 202 Ga. App. 817, 819 ( 415 SE2d 684 ) (1992). “ Tf it appears that a witness intends to claim the privilege as to essentially all questions, the court may, in its discretion, refuse to allow him to take the stand. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lacouture v. United States
green
1 sentence1986Neither side has the right to benefit from any inferences the jury may draw simply from the witness’ assertion of the privilege either alone or in conjunction with questions that have been put to him.” United States v. Lacouture, 495 F2d 1237, 1240 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 1053 (1974), quoting United States v. Johnson, 488 F2d 1206, 1211 (1st Cir. 1973). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.