Georgia CommonsHouse · Introduced · 2025-2026 Regular Session
HB 682: Criminal procedure; death penalty shall not be imposed if only evidence is testimony of a single eyewitness; provide
Last action March 4, 2025 · House Second Readers
A Georgia House bill would bar prosecutors from seeking the death penalty in cases where the only evidence against a defendant is one eyewitness's testimony.
The summaries below were written by an AI model (claude-sonnet-5) from the text of the bill and are not part of it. Quote the text, not the summary. The stored text is the Introduced version, the latest the General Assembly's website lists.
In plain language
Under current Georgia law, juries can impose the death penalty based on the evidence presented at trial, including eyewitness testimony, without a specific rule addressing cases that rely on a single eyewitness. This bill would add a new subsection to Georgia's death penalty procedure law (O.C.G.A. § 17-10-30) stating that the death penalty cannot be imposed if the only evidence of a defendant's guilt is the testimony of one eyewitness. The bill is short: it adds this single new rule to the existing code section and repeals any conflicting laws. It does not change how the death penalty may be imposed in cases supported by other kinds of evidence, such as physical evidence, multiple witnesses, or confessions.
What the bill does
- Adds a new subsection to Georgia's death penalty law (O.C.G.A. § 17-10-30) barring imposition of the death penalty when a single eyewitness's testimony is the only evidence of guilt.
- Leaves unchanged the rules for imposing the death penalty in cases supported by additional evidence beyond one eyewitness's account.
- Repeals any existing state laws that conflict with this new rule.
Who it affects
The change affects criminal defendants facing capital murder charges in Georgia, prosecutors who decide whether to seek the death penalty, judges overseeing capital trials, and juries that decide sentencing in death penalty cases resting heavily on eyewitness identification.
Why it matters
If enacted, prosecutors could no longer pursue a death sentence in a capital case built solely on one person's eyewitness identification, a category of evidence courts and researchers have long recognized as subject to error, potentially changing outcomes in a narrow set of capital trials.
Key provisions
- Section 1 amends O.C.G.A. § 17-10-30, the code section governing the procedure for imposing the death penalty, by adding new subsection (d).
- New subsection (d) states the death penalty shall not be imposed if the only evidence of guilt is the testimony of a single eyewitness.
- Section 2 repeals any conflicting laws but does not otherwise alter existing death penalty procedures.
From the bill
“The death penalty shall not be imposed in cases in which the only evidence of a defendant's guilt is the testimony of a single eyewitness.”
Discussed in meetings (1)
The House and Senate meetings that took this bill up, from their machine transcripts. Each account was written by Georgia Commons with AI and is not part of the record; the video is what was said.
House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, March 5, 2026 (AM)
From 0:34:07 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said HB 682 would prohibit a death sentence when the only evidence was one eyewitness's testimony. The sponsor argued that eyewitness identification can be unreliable, described a classroom experiment producing inconsistent identifications, and compared the proposal with Georgia's two-witness rule for treason. One committee member questioned whether the wording could exclude cases with other evidence but only one material eyewitness, arguing that credibility and cross-examination matter. Another member raised wrongful identifications and asked whether distinguishing direct from circumstantial evidence would help. A district attorney said the bill addressed an unusual situation and did not specify who would decide whether the restriction applied or when that decision would occur. The district attorney also warned that the wording could limit death sentences in cases involving a victim's dying identification. Another member questioned whether the bill presumed a single eyewitness was insufficiently credible. The motion to pass failed by voice vote. No vote count was stated.
Status timeline
- House Second Readers (House)
- House First Readers (House)
- House Hopper (House)
Sponsors
- Billy Mitchell (D, HD-88)
Topics
- death penalty
- criminal procedure
- eyewitness testimony
- capital punishment