Georgia CommonsBuscar en todas las colecciones
Buscar en Georgia Commons
Proyectos de ley, opiniones de la Corte Suprema, el Código y las dos constituciones, y transcripciones de las reuniones de la Cámara y el Senado, en una sola búsqueda. Pregunte con palabras sencillas: la búsqueda ordena los pasajes por su significado y también por sus palabras.
Filtros:Estatal Quitar filtros
Se encontraron 76 documentos.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 21 de febrero de 2023
Bowman v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que el juicio de 2014 de un hombre del condado de Paulding nunca ocurrió ante la ley, porque los 12 ciudadanos que escucharon su caso nunca fueron juramentados como jurado, por lo que él tiene derecho a ser liberado y absuelto conforme a la ley de juicio rápido de Georgia.
On November 27, 2019, through new counsel, Bowman filed a motion for discharge and acquittal on statutory and constitutional speedy trial grounds. On the same day, the State filed a motion seeking a declaratory order that the December 2014 proceeding “constitute[d] a trial” for the purpose of satisfying Bowman’s Demand for Speedy Trial pursuant to OCGA §...
We granted Bowman’s petition for certiorari and posed the following question: Was [Bowman] deprived of his statutory or constitutional right to a speedy trial where the trial he received was held before a jury that had not sworn the oath required by OCGA § 15-12-139? The case was orally argued in this Court on September 20, 2022. 2. The dispute in this case...
Sección del Código · Georgia General Assembly · active
O.C.G.A. § 17-7-170. Demand for speedy trial; service; discharge and acquittal for lack of prosecution; expiration; reversal on direct appeal; mistrial and retrial; special pleas of incompetency
(a) Any defendant against whom a true bill of indictment or an accusation is filed with the clerk for an offense not affecting the defendant’s life may enter a demand for speedy trial at the court term at which the indictment or accusation is filed or at the next succeeding regular court term thereafter; or, by special permission of the court, the defendant...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 20 de septiembre de 2022
Williams v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de un hombre del condado de Richmond, rechazando su alegato de legítima defensa, su argumento sobre la declaración de culpabilidad de un cómplice y su reclamo de que una demora de 25 meses antes de su nuevo juicio violó su derecho a un juicio rápido.
4. Finally, Williams argues that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated when he was not brought to retrial for 25 months after remittitur of his case to the superior court following the reversal of his convictions by this Court. The trial court determined that Williams’s constitutional speedy-trial right was not violated and denied both a...
Courts examining an alleged denial of the constitutional right to a speedy trial first must consider whether the interval between the defendant’s arrest, indictment, or other formal accusation and the trial is sufficiently long so as to be characterized as presumptively prejudicial. If the delay is long enough to invoke the presumption of prejudice, the...
Transcripción de reunión · Georgia House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee · 5 de marzo de 2026
House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, March 5, 2026 (part 2)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): El comité aprobó HB 1255 mediante un texto sustitutivo, con una enmienda que asigna al estado, en lugar de a los secretarios de los tribunales, la responsabilidad de enviar los documentos de acusación. El debate se centró en los plazos para el intercambio de pruebas, las demoras en los casos penales y si los fiscales cuentan con suficiente personal y tecnología para cumplir los requisitos. El comité también escuchó la presentación de HB 1322, que, según quien lo presentó, convertiría la participación en disturbios en un delito grave. Tres organizaciones se opusieron a ese proyecto de ley y plantearon inquietudes sobre la falta de claridad del lenguaje, las penas, los derechos de protesta y las restricciones a la libertad bajo fianza. La presidencia pospuso la consideración del proyecto hasta la mañana siguiente sin someterlo a votación.
I think a lot of times we lose sight of what happens just down the street, for example, in the busiest court in the State of Georgia, which is Fulton County State Court. In Fulton County State Court, you routinely have cases that will be accused in 18 months to 24 months after the date of arrest. Roughly two years. A defendant's case is accused, and then it...
Transcripción de reunión · Georgia Senate Judiciary Committee · 23 de febrero de 2026
Senate Judiciary Committee, February 23, 2026
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): El comité aprobó cuatro proyectos de ley y dejó uno pendiente para seguir trabajando en él. Los miembros aprobaron por unanimidad un texto sustitutivo de SB 470 sobre inhibidores de señal, una versión enmendada de SB 327 que añade un sexto juez de tribunal superior en Clayton Judicial Circuit, y SB 202, que establece reglas de intercambio recíproco de pruebas para casos de delitos menores. Tras extensos testimonios sobre las protecciones constitucionales, la libertad religiosa y los efectos sobre los musulmanes de Georgia, el comité aprobó SB 486, sobre leyes extranjeras y decisiones de tribunales, por 4 votos a 3, con el voto de desempate de la presidencia. El comité dejó pendiente SB 499 después de que los miembros cuestionaran la eliminación de penas agravadas relacionadas con armas de fuego equipadas con silenciadores. El financiamiento del puesto judicial adicional en Clayton siguió siendo un asunto pendiente para el proceso presupuestario.
All right. Any questions for District Attorney Moseley or Judge Mason? Thank y'all. Thank y'all. We have one other person, Mr. Sullivan from the Black Republican Council, that's here. You want the last word? Yes, sir. Come on down. Oh, thank you. Nobody else told me. You know, this whole time, maybe it was better, I don't know. Okay, I will make this quick...
Justice delayed can feel like justice denied. And number five, economic and administrative efficiency. Delays in civil and business cases can negatively affect the economy development. Efficient courts attract businesses, support stable families, reduce detention and housing costs. Investing in one additional judgeship can reduce long-term systematic costs....
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 19 de octubre de 2020
Henderson v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de un hombre del condado de Gwinnett, rechazando sus reclamos de que se violaron sus derechos a un juicio rápido y que los errores de su abogado le daban derecho a un nuevo juicio. La corte también revocó un precedente anterior que asumía que tales errores del abogado siempre causan daño.
Henderson contends that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was denied. We disagree. The United States Constitution guarantees that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy 3 We remind litigants that the Court will end its practice of considering sufficiency sua sponte in non-death penalty cases with cases...
As we have explained, [i]f the delay is long enough to invoke the presumption of prejudice, the trial court must balance four factors: (1) whether the delay before trial was uncommonly long, (2) whether the government or the criminal defendant is more to blame for the delay, (3) whether, in due course, the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial, and...
Sección del Código · Georgia General Assembly · active
O.C.G.A. § 17-7-172. Requirement of announcement by state of readiness for trial prior to announcement by defendant; speedy trial
The state shall be required in every case to announce ready or not ready for trial, except in those cases where the defendant is entitled by law to demand a speedy trial, before the defendant shall be called on to make such announcement.
Disposición constitucional · Constitution of the State of Georgia · active
Ga. Const. Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XI. Right to trial by jury; number of jurors; selection and compensation of jurors
(a) The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be...
Proyecto de ley o resolución · Georgia House of Representatives · 27 de enero de 2025 · Passed
Criminal procedure; pretrial proceedings in capital offense cases where the death penalty is sought when the accused has an intellectual disability; provide
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): El Proyecto de Ley 123 de la Cámara crea un proceso previo al juicio para que los tribunales de Georgia decidan si un acusado que enfrenta la pena de muerte tiene una discapacidad intelectual, y prohíbe la ejecución de cualquier persona que se determine que la tiene.
SECTION 3. Said title is further amended by revising subsection (d) of Code Section 17-7-171, relating to time for a demand for speedy trial in capital cases, discharge and acquittal when no trial held before end of two court terms of demand, counting of terms in cases in which death penalty is sought, and special pleas of incompetency, as follows: "(d) If...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 5 de marzo de 2024
Palmer v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas por asesinato de Willie Williams Palmer de su cuarto juicio, rechazando sus reclamos de que se violaron sus derechos a un juicio rápido y que el tribunal de primera instancia excluyó indebidamente pruebas que señalaban a otros posibles sospechosos.
2. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in rejecting his claim that the State violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. We disagree. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy . . . trial.” Sixth Amendment speedy trial claims are...
Application of the Barker-Doggett balancing test to particular cases is committed to the sound discretion of the trial courts. See Heard v. State, 295 Ga. 559, 563 (761 SE2d 314) (2014). Thus, on appeal from a ruling on a speedy trial claim, we accept the trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, and we review the trial court’s...
Sección del Código · Georgia General Assembly · active
O.C.G.A. § 17-7-171. Time for demand for speedy trial in capital cases; discharge and acquittal when no trial held before end of two court terms of demand; counting of terms in cases in which death penalty is sought; special pleas of incompetency
(a) Any person accused of a capital offense may enter a demand for speedy trial at the term of court at which the indictment is found or at the next succeeding regular term thereafter; or, by special permission of the court, the defendant may at any subsequent term thereafter demand a speedy trial. The demand for speedy trial shall be filed with the clerk...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 20 de diciembre de 2022
Davis v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de un hombre del condado de Fulton, rechazando sus alegatos de que se violaron sus derechos a un juicio rápido, que se excluyó indebidamente evidencia sobre el amigo de la víctima, y que su abogado fue ineficaz.
2. Davis first contends that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. In reviewing the trial court’s ruling on this issue, we accept the trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, and we will affirm its ultimate conclusion absent an abuse of discretion. See Burney v. State, 309 Ga. 273, 286 (4) (845 SE2d 625) (2020)....
2 Although this filing may have been intended as a statutory speedy-trial demand, it did not comply with the speedy-trial statute. See OCGA § 17-7-171. That Code section provides that, absent “special permission of the court,” any speedy-trial demand must be filed “at the term of court at which the indictment is found or at the next succeeding regular term...
Sección del Código · Georgia General Assembly · active
O.C.G.A. § 38-3-62. Suspension or tolling of deadlines and time schedules in event of judicial emergency; statutory speedy trial requirements defined
(a) An authorized judicial official in an order declaring a judicial emergency, or in an order modifying or extending a judicial emergency order, is authorized to suspend, toll, extend, or otherwise grant relief from deadlines or other time schedules or filing requirements imposed by otherwise applicable statutes, rules, regulations, or court orders,...
(vii) The extent of efforts made by prosecuting attorneys and the court to reduce the number of criminal defendants held in custody awaiting trial; and (viii) Other relevant facts that justify ongoing relief from statutory speedy trial requirements, if any. (3) An order granting relief under this subsection shall be accompanied by a certification that...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 7 de febrero de 2023
Rucker v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de un hombre por una invasión a un hogar con resultado de muerte en el suroeste de Atlanta, rechazando sus argumentos sobre una instrucción faltante al jurado y un juicio retrasado.
(c) Assertion of the right. The trial court weighed Rucker’s delay in asserting his right to a speedy trial heavily against him. Rucker argues that the trial court erred in this regard because, although he did not assert his right to a speedy trial until he filed his motion to dismiss the indictment on April 13, 2017, he was not served with initial...
We cannot say that the trial court erred in reaching this determination. Because delay often works to a defendant’s advantage, “the accused bears some responsibility to invoke the speedy trial right and put the government on notice that he . . . would prefer to be tried as soon as possible.” Ruffin, 284 Ga. at 62 (2) (b) (iii). And, “[o]ur cases hold that...
Sección del Código · Georgia General Assembly · active
O.C.G.A. § 17-8-21. When showing for continuance required of state
In all cases in which the defendant cannot, according to law, demand a speedy trial, a continuance shall not be granted to the state, except upon a reasonable showing therefor.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 21 de junio de 2023
Leonard v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de Joshua Leonard por un tiroteo en Columbus en 2010, dictaminando que las declaraciones de la víctima identificando a sus agresores, hechas después de despertar de un coma y de nuevo el día en que murió, fueron admitidas correctamente como declaraciones de moribundo.
“When an accused claims that a delay in bringing him to trial has worked a denial of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, a court first must consider whether the delay is long enough to raise a presumption of prejudice and to warrant a more searching judicial inquiry into the delay.” State v. Johnson, 291 Ga. 863, 864 (1) (734 SE2d 12) (2012). Here,...
(c) Assertion of the right The trial court weighed the third factor heavily against Leonard, finding that Leonard waited more than nineteen months before asserting his right to a speedy trial despite being represented by counsel within one month of his arrest. The record supports that finding, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by weighing...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 6 de febrero de 2024
Redding v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): Por tercera vez, la Corte Suprema de Georgia devolvió el caso de asesinato de Merrick Redding a un tribunal de primera instancia del condado de Muscogee, al fallar que el juez volvió a aplicar mal la prueba legal para decidir si se violaron los derechos de Redding a un juicio rápido.
(c) The assertion of the right to a speedy trial. The trial court weighed the assertion-of-right factor neutrally and did not abuse its discretion in doing so. We have explained that this factor asks whether the defendant asserted the right to a speedy trial in due course. This factor focuses on the timing, form, and vigor of the accused’s demands to be...
Although the trial court again made an erroneous factual finding that Redding requested trial delays, the trial court correctly laid out the other facts and reasons behind the one-year delay in filing the speedy-trial motion and based its analysis in large part on those findings. It is undisputed that Redding first raised the speedy- trial issue one year...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 10 de junio de 2025
State v. Embert
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que el juicio por asesinato de 2019 de una mujer del condado de Dougherty no era automáticamente nulo solo porque un jurado resultó ser un delincuente convicto inelegible, revirtiendo la decisión del tribunal de primera instancia de desestimar su caso por motivos de juicio rápido.
state or before the federal government?” The record contains no indication that either the Juror or any other prospective juror raised a hand in response, and the trial judge determined that the panel was “legally qualified.” (a) Order on Motion for New Trial: Following the motion hearing, the trial court granted Embert’s amended motion for new trial on...
In its dismissal order, the trial court first determined that the service of an ineligible juror not only rendered her sentence void, entitling her to a new trial, but also rendered the December 2019 trial void, finding that “there was no jury trial in this case that satisfied Embert’s constitutional right to a speedy trial.” Therefore, the trial court...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 1 de julio de 2025
Kitchens v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia devolvió el caso de asesinato de un hombre del condado de Bibb al tribunal de primera instancia tras determinar que el juez calculó mal hechos clave y aplicó mal la ley al rechazar su reclamo de que el estado violó su derecho a un juicio rápido.
(c) Assertion of the Right In considering the assertion-of-the-right factor, a trial court must evaluate whether the defendant “‘has asserted the right to a speedy trial in due course,’” which requires “‘a close examination of the procedural history of the case with particular attention to the timing, form, and vigor of the accused’s demands to be tried...
The court correctly determined that Kitchens’s private letters to his lawyer failed to put the trial court or the State on notice of an assertion of his right to a speedy trial and that, consequently, those “[p]rivileged, off-the-record conversations” did not serve as a sufficient invocation of the right. Henderson, 310 Ga. at 237. But the trial court’s...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 1 de octubre de 2024
Redding v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó por cuarta y última vez la condena de Merrick Redding por asesinato en grado de delito grave, al determinar que no se violaron sus derechos a un juicio rápido y que cualquier error probatorio en el juicio fue inofensivo.
LAGRUA, Justice. Following a 2018 jury trial, Appellant Merrick Redding was found guilty of felony murder and aggravated assault in connection with the death of Joseph Davis. This is Redding’s fourth appeal to this Court. In his first three appeals, we vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded for the trial court to apply the correct facts and legal...
Redding for malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault with a “closed fist.” He was reindicted on the same charges on May 22, 2018. At a trial from October 24 to November 5, 2018, the jury found Redding not guilty of malice murder but guilty of the remaining counts. The trial court orally denied the speedy-trial motion at the pretrial conference...
Afinar los resultados
Los números cuentan los documentos que encontró esta búsqueda.