Why the Upcoming Amendment to the Georgia Court of Appeals Rules is a Good Idea

/by

Beginning on August 1, a single dissent in a three-judge Court of Appeals case will no longer remove its value as precedent for future cases, nor will one judge’s disagreement with the reasoning of the case. Here is the text of new Court of Appeals rule 33.2:

If an appeal is decided by a division of this Court or by the Court sitting en banc, a published opinion in which a majority of the judges fully concur in the rationale and judgment of the decision is binding precedent.

According to Chief Judge McFadden, “This rule change brings the Court of Appeals of Georgia in line with other federal and state intermediate appellate courts throughout the country. It will further our role in building and maintaining a clear and a consistent body of case law throughout the state.”

The new rule does not reverse a historic trend; rather, its reverses rule that had been in effect for just a few years when the legislature gave the Court the power to set its own rule regarding the establishment of precedent.

I do not think that the rule will effect any lawyer’s win/loss rate (though I will note that many of my wins have been with a concurring vote or a dissent), I think the rule change is good for two reasons.

  1. Most intermediate appellate courts do not require unanimity for cases to set precedent. Our court should function the way federal circuit court and the similar state courts around the nation.
  2. The close cases are the ones where we need precedent the most. Generally, when a panel is in complete agreement, the case is not close or is setting forth established law.

While some may be concerned with quality control with a case that is as busy as Georgia’s intermediate appellate court, the Court has the ability to issue non-published opinions to avoid a turn of phrase creating inadvertent precedent in a case that the panel saw as a restatement of established law.

One final note, the rule is not retroactive. So 2-1s and JO opinions from the past will not become precedent on August 1.

It’s a Gray Day in Georgia for Motions to Modify Sentence

/by

There is an important new case that changes the law concerning motions to modify sentence in Georgia. In Gray v. State, a case published on August 26, 2019, the Court of Appeals held that trial courts lose jurisdiction, under O.C.G.A. Section 17-10-1(f), to modify criminal sentences following either 120 days after the remittitur where there was an appeal or one year after sentencing even if the motion to modify is filed sooner than those dates. I will provide some procedural history followed by analysis.

The defendant in Gray was sentenced by Judge A. He timely filed a motion to modify sentence, which was heard eleven months later by Judge B. Judge B granted the modification. Judge A, the original sentencing judge, found out what happened and, sua sponte, entered an order vacating the sentence.

Gray appealed, arguing that the order vacating was void. The Court affirmed, reasoning that the trial court lost jurisdiction to modify its sentence after the expiration of a year and after the end of the term of court in which the sentence was imposed. The Court ends the opinion pointing out nine cases allowing courts to modify sentence where the motions were filed within the statutory time and distinguishing (but not overruling) those cases.

Gray has petitioned to the Georgia Supreme Court for certiorari. The opinion in Gray raises a host of policy concerns. What exactly is the status of the line of cases “distinguished” in the opinion? Also, can a judge simply run out the clock by delaying a ruling on the case? What happens if the case is heard and the time runs out while it is under advisement? Finally, counsel will often advise clients to wait a while before filing motions to modify to let some time pass after sentencing, to allow for good conduct while in prison, for participation in programs, and other post-sentencing mitigation facts to develop. The law, as interpreted in Gray, places defendants in a position to file so soon that there is no opportunity to develop new mitigating evidence. Indeed, the modification statute has traditionally provided an incentive for good conduct after sentencing. Defendants who move to modify shortly after sentencing will be open to accusations of buyer’s remorse or the failure truly to accept responsibility.

This case presents excellent issues for certiorari and may prompt discussion at the Georgia legislature in the upcoming session.

A Few Thoughts on Motions for Reconsideration

/by

This week, I became involved in an appeal much later than I typically do. The Court of Appeals had already made its decision, and I drafted a motion for reconsideration for my new co-counsel. Typically, when I draft a motion for reconsiderayion, I am getting my ducks in a row for a petition for certiorari or I am trying to throw a hail mary pass for a devestated client. My typical motion for new reconsideration is a couple of pages in length and written in the style of a trial motion, with numbered paragraphs. Never before have I been asked to enter a case at the MFR stage. Since this was my sole mission, I wanted to add even more value to the process. And so I went to the first place we should all go if we want to up our game in a particular court — the rules of that court as they relate to the subject at hand. It turns out that the MFR stage offers us quite a few options.

In the Georgia Court of Appeals, you go to Rule 37 to learn all about how to prepare an MFR. In short, there are opportunities and ways to get in trouble. Let’s start with the ways you can get in trouble

Ways to get in trouble

  • You must file your MFR within 10 days of the decision by 4:30 p.m. Ordinarily, you can e-file things with the COA until 11:59 and you get credit for the day of filing, even if the clerk doesn’t docket your brief until they open the next day. If you file your MFR at 4:31 p.m. on day 10, the Clerk of Court will docket your MFR as if filed on day 11. And if you file your MFR on day 11, bad things may happen to it.
  • The clerk of court can shorten your 10 days. I’ve never seen it happen. But it potentially could at the end of a term.

Opportunities

  • Let’s talk about the standard for granting a MFR. According to Rule 37(e), “a reconsideration shall be granted on motion only when it appears that the Court overlooked a material fact in the record, a statute, or a decision which is controlling as authority and which would require a different judgment from that rendered, or has erroneoulsy construed or misapplied a provision of law or controlling authority.” I read 37(e) as a fairly liberal standard. With that said, a MFR should be narrow, short, and targeted. You are telling three COA judges that they made a bad mistake. So, tread lightly.
  • Blame yourself. Typically, when I write an MFR I blame myself for the adverse decision in the way I briefed the matter — essentially “I was likely unclear in the way I wrote. So, this is all my fault. Better advocacy would have taken you to the right result.”
  • You have some space to write. Rule 37(a) refers us over to Rule 24, which is the section that deals with the physical preparation of briefs. So, your MFR can literally be a brief. The only limitation imposed is that your MFR is limited to 4,200 words, or about 7–8 pages of text using a 14-point font and double spacing.
  • If you draft an MFR in the form of a brief at 4,200 words and cover the topic, you will probably file the best brief you have ever written. You may even wish that your original brief had looked like this brief. Had the brief been this clear and succinct, your opponent might be writing an MFR right now.

I make no comment about whether the strategy here is a winning one. You are likely still throwing a hail mary pass in any event. I offer these comments as a lawyer who entered the game just to throw the pass. The ball is in the air as I write these words.

Rickman Offers Insight into How Young Appellate Judges Read Briefs and Motions

/by

Today, I cut a weekend beach trip short to come to Macon to attend a one-day meeting and seminar for a group of Georgia DUI lawyers. My family returned home later, but I traveled up I–16 to a farm in Macon. Instead of the typical hotel ballroom environment, we met at a farm cabin on some property owned by a middle-Georgia personal injury lawyer. Chief among the lessons learned today was that I should be doing personal injury. Beyond that, I picked up a few valuable tips on regarding the inner workings of the Georgia Court of Appeals.

One of the day’s speakers was Hon. Brian M. Rickman of the Georgia Court of Appeals. Judge Rickman is relatively new to the Court, and this was my first opportunity to meet him and hear him speak. While the majority of what he shared comported with what I had heard from other judges at CLEs over the years, there were a couple of points that were new to me. I will focus on those.

  • The “Younger Judges” are doing most of their work electronically. Judge Rickman did not list out which judges he considered being among the youth of the court, but I have a fairly good idea of who they are. Given that many of the judges work at least a day or more from home, most review briefs and the record electronically on their computer. But here was the surprise. A good bit of the court’s work is done on iPad and even smartphones. For example, the judges receive an alert whenever a lawyer files a motion for extension or a request for oral argument. This alert pushes out the judge electronically, and the pleading can be read and approved on a phone or tablet. So, judges can handle some of the motions caseloads remotely. And most records and briefs are available in electronic form from anywhere. I googled the name of the software system I thought he cited, but I could not find any links to share.
  • Judge Rickman welcomes graphics and embeds of evidence (such as photographs and charts) in the briefs. Presumably, the judges who do most of their work in electronic form would see color exhibits and graphics in color (I am not sure if the judges who work in paper print out the briefs in color). If you file briefs with color graphics, you will likely stand out from your opponent and from most of the other lawyers.
  • There is a side benefit to requesting oral argument. Regardless of whether oral argument is granted, the request is an opportunity to provide your panel with a condensed version of your argument. For such a busy court, any opportunity to request that the court spend more time with your case — even if that time is spent reviewing a request for oral argument — is a chance to distinguish it from the mass of cases taking the court’s attention. Other judges have made this point before. What I didn’t know was that the judge gets a notification electronically when you file a request for oral argument. And the judge may review that request from a smartphone.

As I left the massive farm and pondered if it is too late for me to do personal injury, I also walked away with further insight into the Court of Appeals from one of its newest judges.

The Judge as 13th Juror: Thoughts on the Fayette Rape Controversy

/by

Last week, a motion for new trial made news when Hon. Christopher J. McFadden granted a new trial after finding that the verdict was “strongly against the weight of the evidence.” The State’s reaction was three-fold. First, it appealed the decision. Secondly, the State made comments in the press. Third, the State moved to recuse the judge who entered the order. According to Bill Rankin and Steve Visser of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Judge McFadden came “Under Fire” for his decision. This has been a difficult story for me to follow. For one, I profoundly respect the professionalism and integrity of Mr. Ballard and Judge McFadden. I have cases against this particular DA and his office on a regular basis. In the years I have had cases with the DA and his office, I have never found a more professional, talented, and reasonable group. And I have known the judge since his time in private practice. He ran a grassroots campaign and won a contested state-wide election for the Court of Appeals. And to clear a little confusion up, Judge McFadden was an appellate judge who presided over this criminal trial by designation. I’m sure both of these men believe that they did the right thing in the case. It is certain that the DA firmly believes that the judge did not do the right thing. The other reason that this has been a difficult story to follow, is that while we lawyers are free to comment about the result of cases in speaking to the press, judges are not ethically at liberty to defend their actions in the press. All members of the public may not know that. So, when a judge does not respond, members of the public may draw all of the negative conclusions that they would typically draw when a person in a controversial matter “declines to comment.” Judges can’t discuss an ongoing case with the press and really shouldn’t. I could say why, but hopefully it’s self-evident.

Not Acting Like a Victim

There were a few other things of concern from this story. For one, the ABA Journal highlights a statement from the order granting the new trial and quotes it out of context. The article notes the finding that the complaining witness in the case was not “acting like a victim.” This statement could seem shocking if read out of context. And I do not know nearly enough about the case to comment about the exact import of that statement under this unique set of facts. However, having defended many cases like this at the trial and appellate court level, how the defendant and complaining witness act after an alleged rape can be important. If a complaining witness continues to be friends with an alleged rapist, delays in calling the police, or acts as if he or she is not frightened of the defendant for a period of time before reporting a rape, those facts can be important for a jury to hear. And in Georgia, by a long tradition in the law, a judge can act “metaphorically” as the 13th juror if he decides that the verdict is “strongly against the weight of the evidence.” So, judges can weigh the evidence and set aside a decision; it is part of the function of judges in the State of Georgia to do that.

While the DA in this case strongly disagrees with this particular judge’s assessment of the actions of the complaining witness in this particular case, he would not disagree that how a victim “acts” is an important component in a victim’s believability. This DA writes a popular column in a local newspaper. In a recent column, titled “The Game Within the Game,” the DA, Scott Ballard, wrote on that very subject. After some introductory comment about the case, the DA wrote about whether the defendant acted like a perpetrator and contrasted it with how the child acted like a victim:

In this case, the defendant lived a life that paid little regard to commonly accepted sexual boundaries. He had multiple partners. They did kinky stuff. You get the picture. It wouldn’t be a huge leap to believe that he would do prohibited acts with children.So, why would the child say this happened if it didn’t? Here the defense had real issues. For one thing, we had more than one victim. For another, the girls were too young to know much about sexual matters.The defense did what they usually do. They tried to inject adults into the mix. Adults were angry with the defendant and “coached” the children. To try to prove that, they look at the language the children used to report the abuse. Was it “age appropriate?” They probe into the circumstances of the report of abuse. Was it timed in a way to benefit some enemy of the defendant? How do we combat this defense? The children testify.So, Ben called the children to the witness stand and asked them to share with the jury the sickening things the defendant did to them. Let me give you a brief glimpse.A frail, thin girl—she looked about ten years old—walked slowly into the courtroom. Her hair was the color of a carrot. And she was scared.Ben asked her questions designed to assure everyone that she understood the importance of telling the truth. It was clear that she did. Then he asked her,“Do you remember meeting with me a few days ago and talking about how it would feel to come in here today?” The girl nodded gently. Ben continued. “I told you that you would probably be nervous and that I would be nervous, too?” The little auburn head nodded again.

The “game within the game” was the character and actions of the defendant versus the character and actions of the victim. Would it be a leap to believe that Thomaston, Georgia’s version of Caligula would molest a child? And would a frail thin girl who “nods gently” “walks slowly into the courtroom” and act nervously make up a story like this? The answer for this DA, under those particular circumstances, is “no.” Does the truth of the “game within the game” not apply the the benefit of the defendant and sometimes against the credibility of a victim’s account? Whether a particular witness acts “like a victim” was an important element in the case described in the column. And if we are to accept its importance in cases with a guilty defendant and innocent victim, the converse would also be true, no?

That one line is less shocking when placed in the larger context of the sixteen-page Order. The Order is worth reading in its entirety (PDF).

The Impartiality of the Court of Appeals

The press coverage also suggests that every judge on the Court of Appeals my have to recuse themselves when this case reaches that court. In particular, the article quotes Mr. Ballard as asking rhetorically about the prospect of the case getting to the Court of Appeals:

Ballard said he is now appealing that decision to the same appeals court on which McFadden sits. “How awkward is that?” Ballard asked.

The answer to “how awkward is that?” is “not very.” Judge McFadden wouldn’t participate in the Court’s consideration of this case, for several reasons. First, he would certainly recuse himself from the case in the appellate court. Secondly, the Court of Appeals works in three-judge panels. It is a rare case that goes to the whole Court. It is not unusual for an appellate judge to sit by designation over a trial court or for a trial judge to sit as a justice on the Supreme Court by designation. Indeed, when Judge McFadden was selected to hear the trial of this rape case by designation, it was not outside the realm of possibility that it would make its way to the Court of Appeals one day. Parties have the opportunity to object to an appellate judge sitting by designation in a trial. And if there might be some “awkwardness” down the road with the case going to the Court of Appeals, those parties may object before the trial starts. And if you don’t object going in, you waive the right to do so later. I don’t know if that happened in this case before the motion for new trial was granted or not.

More importantly, our appellate courts handle these sorts of things well. For instance, Judge Carla McMillian came to the Court of Appeals from her previous post as the judge in the State Court of Fayette County. Her rulings have made their way to the Court of Appeals, and her current colleagues have even managed to disagree with her on occasion. I’m not an insider at the Court, but none of that has seemed particularly awkward. She wasn’t on the panels that considered her judgment. Judge Michael Boggs came to the Court of Appeals from the Waycross Judicial Circuit. His decisions have made their way to the Court of Appeals in the early days of his tenure. If there’s been any awkwardness, I’m not aware. In all of the controversy surrounding his confirmation to the Federal bench, this subject has never come up. And, more recently, Justice Keith Blackwell has been appointed to the Supreme Court of Georgia after he was a judge on the Court of Appeals. This transition has not created a crisis of partiality.

Even in the trial court, Superior Court judges are frequently called upon to sign a search warrant, where that warrant is later the subject of a motion to suppress before the very same judge. And trial judges in every motion for new trial are asked to assess whether they committed judicial error as they presided over a case at trial. And yet our system works very well.

The Georgia Court of Appeals will handle this case with impartiality and professionalism, because this situation is not as unprecedented as a casual reader of the AJC article might think. And the Court has acted with impartiality and professionalism in those instances.

Conclusion

This case will run its course. I place great faith in our system. But that faith is only as strong as the public’s confidence in the integrity of an independent judiciary. The media component of things like this, with conclusions that get wrong the basics of how our appellate courts function, make me fear what lies ahead for our judiciary.

Ct. of Appeals Judge Carla McMillian’s Ten Tips on Practice

/by

Judge Carla McMillian’s campaign for re-election is in full swing. The Augusta press ran a full interview last month. And Judge McMillian took some time out to speak to the Appellate Practice Section’s monthly luncheon, where she reflected on a year on the Court and shared her top ten lessons and tips from her time as an appellate judge. Aly Palmer of the Fulton a Daily Report covered the event (article behind the pay wall). The article from the Fulton Daily Report talks more about how Judge McMillian was made a judge and her reaction to the appointment. The article also details some of Judge McMillan’s reflections upon her first year on the bench. This post focuses on the practical tips from Judge McMillian’s presentation.

The top 10 lessons are:

  1. Jurisdiction is not always clear cut. Judge McMillian said that many cases are transferred from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals based upon the Supreme Court’s position that it lacks jurisdiction over the case. What is a practitioner to do? She advises that it is best to file first in the Supreme Court if jurisdiction is doubtful. The Supreme Court will then transfer the case down to the Court of Appeals. Beginning in the Court of Appeals in such cases has the downside of creating what Judge McMillian calls “a ping-pong match” of the case being transferred up only to be transferred back. The relevant statutes on jurisdiction can create much confusion in “edge cases” where there is an argument to be made that either court might have jurisdiction.
  2. Even if you don’t get a docketing notice, your brief is still due. This bit of advice created the scariest moment in the room as lawyers (at least I did) began to think about what might be sitting in their spam folder. Judge McMillian noted at least two instances where lawyers did not get their docketing notice. In such situations, the court has some discretion regarding whether to dismiss the case or not. But, if you have recently paid the costs to send the record up, you may do well to check with the court every week or so to make sure the cases not been docketed. Docketing notices go out electronically now, and it is easy for emails to get lost in the shuffle of the inbox or inadvertently placed into a spam folder.
  3. When you do not know whether to file a discretionary or direct appeal, err on the side of discretionary. Some matters can be appealed directly, and others must be appealed by discretionary application. Choosing the wrong form can be fatal to the case. If you file a discretionary application in a case where you have the right to appeal directly, then the court will allow you to appeal directly. If you file a direct appeal where you are required to file a discretionary application, your case will be dismissed. So, it is best to file discretionary when in doubt. On a related note, Judge McMillian pointed out the value in making discretionary applications lengthy enough to explain the case but not so lengthy that the court is overwhelmed with material.
  4. If you want the full court to examine the case then request that precedent be overruled. In any case where a judge votes to overturn precedent, the matter will go to the full court. If you can get one judge to agree overturn precedent, then all 12 judges will decide the case.
  5. Be more creative in helping the court understand the case. Judge McMillian noted that it is perfectly acceptable and welcome for advocates to place graphics or photographs into their briefs. She noted by way of example an advocate who placed a map of disputed land into the brief to illustrate the major concepts at issue in a dispute over a deed. She also noted that the judges like to see relevant exhibits displayed on screen during oral argument. I would note that judicial opinions differ on these points.
  6. Don’t disparage the trial judge, opposing counsel, or other judges on the panel. Judges often make this point when they speak or write about professionalism. Judge McMillian cited a recent and real-life example of a lawyer who had compared the judges to some characters from Mayberry. There is a temptation to disparage on a motion for reconsideration; she advises just don’t do it.
  7. Formatting / fonts. Judge McMillian offered several comments about formatting and fonts. First, formatting is important to her. She noted a recent walk with her husband, another lawyer, where the two argued about fonts. However, if opposing counsel makes a formatting mistake, then it is likely not worth raising unless opposing counsel has derived some unfair advantage from it.
  8. Recordings. Recording don’t automatically go up with the record. Do not assume that they have. If the recording is critical to you, make sure that it is included in the record. If it wasn’t, then move to supplement the record on appeal.
  9. Oral argument requests should be self-contained. The judges who read the request for oral argument will not be familiar with the case. Also, they likely will not have read the brief by the time that they consider the request. Therefore, the request should summarize the case well enough for the judges to make an informed decision. Also, if you want argument, go ahead and request it. Any one judge can grant the request.
  10. If one of the judges on the panel concurs in judgment only, then you should file a motion for reconsideration. A JO often indicates some doubt about the decision by one of the judges. Filing a motion for reconsideration may change the outcome or draw a concurring opinion. (Note: After this post was published, Judge McMillian clarified in a tweet that this advice relates to J.O.s that come at or around distress time. Don’t know what a J.O. is? Check out Court of Appeals Rule 33. Don’t know what distress time is? Check out a previous post I wrote about it).

The Appellate Practice Section frequently invites judges and justices shortly after they are elected or appointed. Judge McMillian was a particularly engaging speaker who gave practical insightful tips about how to practice before the court.

New Field Sobriety/Miranda Case Important at Several Levels

/by

The Court of Appeals, with a panel made up of Judges Dillard, Ellington, and Phipps, has reversed an order granting a motion to suppress from the State Court of Fayette County.

I write about this case because it further develops the law in the area of Miranda and field sobriety testing and because it illustrates how the standard of review on appeal can change when a significant part of the proof is on videotape.

In State v. Mosely, the Court of Appeals reviewed the field sobriety tests in a DUI case. The facts are fairly straightforward. Police responded to a call from a convenience store clerk who witnessed a dispute in the parking lot between a man and a woman. Police arrived to find a man and woman standing beside Mr. Mosley’s car, which appeared to have been involved in an accident.

At which point, the office became suspicious of DUI because the man had trouble walking and smelled of alcohol. A second deputy appeared who asked the man if he would take field sobriety tests. After some discussion, the officer said:

Listen, listen, listen to me – step back and lean on the bumper. Would you mind voluntarily doing field sobriety tests? … I’m saying I’m going to conduct some field-sobriety test, test your impairment to see if you are safe enough to drive and/or walk away.

It was all downhill from there. Mr. Mosely took the tests and was arrested for DUI.

The trial court (Judge Carla McMillan, who is now on the Court of Appeals) held that the request for field sobriety was custodial and that the officer should have Mirandized Mr. Mosely before proceeding.

The Court of Appeals reversed noting several things:

  • since the evidence was undisputed and was largely captured on videotape, the standard of review should be de novo;
  • since the officer told Mr. Mosley that the test was voluntarily, it was not compelled;
  • since the defendant was told that the detention would be temporary, it did not rise to the level of custody (what about the part where the officer said that he was going to conduct the tests and that the purpose was to see if he could walk or drive away. Sound pretty open-ended, no?)

There are a couple of important takeaways from this case.

  • If you can proceed to the appellate courts on undisputed facts or with videotaped evidence, you have a shot at winning with a less deferential standard of review;
  • Statements about what an officer is “going to” do does not imply a command. A statement that participation in field sobriety testing is necessary to see if a person is safe enough to leave is not necessarily a statement that the person is not free to leave or that successful completion of field sobriety testing is pre-requisite to leaving the scene.

This case also leaves a question. To what extent is a holding by an appellate panel or the Supreme Court to be viewed as precedent where the Court has reviewed a case de novo? Is the appellate court making a ruling of law, or it acting as a second trial court reviewing a unique set of facts under existing law?

If I’m at a suppression hearing and this case comes up, I’m going to say it’s the latter.

How to Defeat the State’s New Pre-trial Appellate Rights

/by

HB 349 has been the subject of much discussion for its sentencing innovations. However, nestled within it are some significant changes to the appellate code. This post will familiarize you with the appellate provisions of HB 349 and provide some tips to get around them.

Pre-HB 349

Under the soon to be old law, any party in a criminal case who wants to appeal must do so by following a two-step process:

  1. Get a certificate of immediate review from the trial court within 10 days of the ruling that the party wants to appeal.
  2. File a discretionary appeal application with the appellate court.

New Law

Under Section 1 of HB 349, O.C.G.A. Section 5–7–1 (5) has been created, which provides that:

An appeal may be taken by and on behalf of the State of Georgia from the superior courts, state courts, and juvenile courts and from such other courts from which a direct appeal is authorized to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Georgia in criminal cases and adjudication of delinquency cases in the following instances
…

From an Order, decision, or judgment excluding any other evidence to be used by the state at trial or on any motion filed by the state or defendant at least 30 days prior to trial and ruled on prior to the impaneling of a jury or the defendant being out in jeopardy, whichever occurs first if:
(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of Code Section 5–6–38, the Notice of appeal filed pursuant to this paragraph is filed within two days of such order, decision, or judgment; and
(B) The prosecuting attorney certifies to the trial court that such appeal is not taken for purpose of delay and that the evidence is a substantial proof of a material fact in the proceeding

In plain English, the new law provides

  • the State may directly appeal a pre-trial order excluding its evidence or on any motion filed at least 30 days before trial
  • if it is ruled on before jeopardy attaches or the jury is impaneled
  • if the state files a notice of appeal at least 2 days before trial, and
  • the State certifies that the appeal is not for purpose of delay and is material

Ways Around It

  1. Avoid filing motions in limine when you can. There are certain motions that must be filed within 10 days of arraignment. The rest may be filed at any time, even during trial. Where possible, hold those motions until after the jury is impaneled. As soon as the jury is sworn, file your motions and ask for a hearing.
  2. Defer rulings, when you can. If the hearing on your motion to suppress or on the State’s motion appears to be going well, ask the court to defer its ruling until jeopardy attaches.
  3. Get a “tip” instead of a ruling. Then request that the Court not formally enter its ruling until it’s too late for the State to appeal. At the conclusion of the motions hearing, move to hold the ruling until the matter is proceeding is beyond the reach of the new law. Ask the Court, not to rule, but whether the Court is inclined to rule your way.

Conclusion

The new appellate provisions in HB 349 are about as hole-laden as Swiss cheese. Unfortunately, they encourage a sense of trial by ambush as important matters are deferred until juries are sworn or jeopardy has attached. It also encourages litigation by nods, winks, and guesses in an effort to fix something that was never broken.

Alas, here are a few ways around the new law. Let me know if you have other ideas.

New Procedure at the Court of Appeals

/by

Today, I had my first oral argument at the Court of Appeal in perhaps two years.

Argument is granted more frequently in civil cases than criminal ones at the Georgia Court of Appeals. So, most of my arguing is at the Supreme Court down the hall.

The presiding judge began most of the cases with a summary of the facts. I wasn’t sure if the purpose of the summary was to inform the public of the context or if it was to help move the argument along.

I assumed it was the latter and truncated my presentation. Many of the advocates I heard today went forward with the factual presentation they intended to give. I think I did the right thing, but I’m not completely sure.

I found it helpful. And if you haven’t argued there in a while, you might take note (though don’t rely on it. Not every case had a summary). I don’t know if every panel is doing it or not. And I don’t know how long this practice has been in place.

If you practice in the Ga. COA, please leave a comment to share your experience.

Congratulations Justice Blackwell

/by

Governor Deal has announced that Judge Keith Blackwell will be the Supreme Court’s newest Justice. He will fill the vacancy created by Chief Justice Carley’s retirement.

I have gotten to know Judge Blackwell through my work on the Appellate Practice Section. He will be a great addition to the Georgia Supreme Court.

ADDRESS

199 W Jefferson St.
Madison, GA 30650

PHONE

678-610-6624

EMAIL

tori@scottkeylaw.com