ADVERTISEMENT
Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Capital Defense Weekly
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Criminal Law
: Capital Defense Weeklyfirst look
By Karl R. Keys, Esq.
ADVERTISEMENTS
Several dispositions missed last week will lead off this week, as well as continuing zealous advocacy around lethal injection claims. Thanks to several colleagues for forwarding the fruits of their work.
In favor the Condemned
Bryant v. State, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 251 (Ga 3/18/2011) Reversing death sentence because of improper victim impact evidence admitted ? witnesses gave their characterizations of the crime and of Bryant, but holding that victim impact evidence from earlier crimes committed by Bryant were admissible, and rejecting many other issues; Justice Carley dissented with regard to the admission of the victim impact evidence.
Perkins v. Hall, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 255 (Ga 3/18/2011) Setting aside death sentence because of ineffective assistance at the penalty phase even though habeas court found that counsel?s failure to investigate more fully was due to the client?s resistance which included refusing to submit to a mental health evaluation, relying on ABA Standards in assessing counsel?s performance, finding prejudice established by the non-expert testimony of Perkins? behavior including how his behavior changed after two head injuries, but also holding that whether the defendant was competent at the time of trial was procedurally defaulted; and remanding for a determination of when the jury wrote a note saying it was concerned about its safety ? holding that it was prejudicial and requires relief if the note was written during the guilt stage; the Court was unanimous on every issue except the determination that competency for trial was waived ? Chief Justice Hunstein, the only dissenter, would follow the Supreme Court?s decision in Pate v...continue to full postFull post as published by Capital Defense Weekly on March 27, 2011 (boomark / email).
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.








