Georgia Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

On Monday, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the convictions of two men who were found guilty of murdering a DeKalb man at his home recording studio. The DeKalb County District Attorney’s Office must now decide whether it will retry the men.

WABE News and the Atlanta Journal Constitution have the story.

Prosecutors say that Steven Manley and Robert Allen planned to rob the home of Emmett Whatley in February of 2007, because they knew he stored large sum of cash there. However, the state claims that their robbery plans went askew when Whatley was shot and killed in his front yard. After a jury trial, Allen and Manley were convicted and received life sentences for Whatley’s death.

Allen and Manley’s criminal defense attorney won a reversal of the murder convictions on appeal, since the trial judge failed to allow defense attorneys to fully cross-examine state witnesses. WABE legal analyst Page Pate told WABE listeners that, “The Supreme Court is trying to send a message to trial judges in this state that you need to let defense attorneys probe about special deals.” Specifically, Pate explained, “Any sort of benefit that may accrue to the witness by testifying for the state needs to be explored at trial.”

The Supreme Court also ruled that a statement given by Manley should have been suppressed, since the statement came after Manley had asked for an attorney. In the statement, Manley admitted to being in Whatley’s neighborhood on the night of the murder.

On Monday, a DeKalb County judge declared a mistrial in the case of a Dunwoody woman accused of shooting and killing her wealthy husband. The mistrial was handed down after jurors became deadlocked as to whether the woman acted in self-defense.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The week-long trial forced jurors to answer whether Lona Scott, 47, shot her husband six times to protect herself or whether she was after his millions of dollars. After 20 hours of deliberation, the jury, which consisted of four women and eight men, were evenly divided as to guilt. It was at that time that Superior Court Judge Cynthia Brown issued the mistrial.

Lona’s husband, Ralph C. “Cliff” Scott, 42, was described as a muscular man who ran a successful trucking company. Lona and Ralph Scott wedded in 2000 and endured a turbulent marriage with alleged past acts of violence and cheating.

During trial, jurors heard Lona Scott explain how her husband, Ralph C. “Cliff” Scott, became angered late one night in March of 2008 after she refused to have sex with him or talk about the divorce petition she had filed. She then described to jurors the scene that took place in the couple’s master bedroom. Cliff Scott apparently pulled Lona’s hair and put her in a choke-hold. He only released her after she told him that he was going to wake their 5 year old daughter. Lona then retrieved a .22 caliber hand gun from a desk in hopes of leaving the home safely.

However, Cliff Scott refused to let her leave and told her that he could kill her since she had a gun. He then allegedly charged after Lona at which time she fired a single bullet into his chest. Lona claims that Cliff charged her again causing her to pull the trigger five more times. Three of those bullets struck Cliff in the elbows and forehead. The other two lodged in his back as he turned and fell to the floor. Lona then called 911.

Defense attorney Brian Steel, of the Steel Law Firm in Atlanta, asked Lona Scott why she did it. She told jurors, “Because he was going to kill me.” However, Assistant District Attorney John Melvin believes that money was the true motive. Melvin argued to jurors that Lona was after Cliff Scott’s five million dollar estate. Melvin explained that Lona became enraged after learning that Cliff was in the process of transferring his money into a secretive account in the Bahamas where he planned to live.

The District Attorney’s Office expects to retry the case soon.

The Supreme Court of Georgia recently held that the state’s failure to disclose a co-defendant’s changed sentence from the plea agreement, which allowed the co-defendant to potentially reduce his sentence after testifying against the defendant, robbed the defendant of his right to impeach the co-defendant by showing a motivation to lie.

In State v. Gonnella, the defendant, Gonnella, was convicted of felony murder but acquitted of malice murder. On the night in question, Gonnella and his friend Evans drove to an apartment to buy marijuana from Williams. Williams stated that he had no marijuana, but that he had $500 to buy marijuana if Evans found a seller. Gonnella and Evans left, but then drove back at Gonnella’s request. While Evans waited in the car, Gonnella went into the apartment at which time Evans heard a gunshot. Gonnella later told Evans that Williams went for his gun and that a struggle ensued during which time the weapon was discharged. The two men then drove to Evans’ brother’s home where Gonnella stated that he had killed someone. Gonnella gave the brother his bloody shirt, and Evans later disposed of the gun in a wooded area. Evans eventually told police the location of the gun, and police were able to match the gun to the bullet pulled from Williams. Police also learned that the bullet was fired close to the skin and that it traveled downward into Williams’ head.

Evans and Gonnella were then indicted on three counts with Count One being malice murder. Before trial, Gonnella asked the court for an order forcing the state to reveal all agreements between the state and any of its witnesses. At the hearing, the state disclosed a plea agreement with Evans. Gonnella then simply asked the state to disclose any future plea agreements. When Evans took the stand, the state gave Gonnella a document entitled “Plea Agreement.” According to the agreement, Evans would plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter as to Count One and receive 20 years with 15 in prison. In exchange, Evans would testify against Gonnella at trial.

However, the state failed to provide a document entitled “Defendant’s Change of Plea.” In that document, Evans altered his plea from “not guilty” to “guilty” to voluntary manslaughter. On these forms, there is a sentence which reads: “In addition, the defendant waives any right to modification of the sentence to be imposed pursuant to this agreement, and agrees that he shall not seek modification of said sentence in the future.” However, this text was crossed out on Evan’s change of plea form. The lack of this text meant that Evans could ask for a better sentence for himself after testifying against Gonnella.

Under the U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, the state has a duty to reveal any agreement with a witness which concerns criminal charges against the witness. Failure to comply with Brady constitutes a due process violation. For a defendant to succeed on a Brady claim, he must show that the state possessed evidence helpful to the defendant, that the state suppressed the evidence, that the defendant did not have the evidence nor could he through reasonable diligence, and that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different had the state disclosed the evidence.

The Supreme Court of Georgia reasoned that being able to impeach the state’s primary witness is of great importance. In this case, the state denied Gonnella the ability to impeach Evans by demonstrating a motive to lie. The Court explained that if the state had disclosed the change, Gonnella would have had the opportunity to show that the state left open the possibility that Evans could receive a lighter sentence. Gonnella would have been able to argue that the state did this so that Evans would be motivated to testify in such a way as to ensure Gonnella’s conviction. Thus, the state denied favorable evidence that Gonnella could not have found by reasonable diligence. The Court also found that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different, since the jury acquitted Gonnella of malice murder and the other witness, Evans’ brother, also had a motive to lie which was to protect his brother.

Our criminal defense attorneys have defended numerous clients who have had co-defendants testify against them at trial. In our experience, it is not uncommon for a defendant to be denied full knowledge of deals or agreements that are made between the government and witnesses. It is also not uncommon for a witness or a co-defendant to lie in hopes of getting a better deal. A good criminal defense attorney will pressure the state by filing disclosure motions and conducting independent investigations to ensure that a jury knows of any deals that a witness has accepted and whether the witness is telling the truth about what happened. An independent investigation often consists of running background checks, interviewing other witnesses and persons who know the witness as well as reviewing police and court transcripts for inconsistent statements.

The manager of the Atlanta strip club Body Tap, Frederick Richardson, was arrested for manslaughter in connection with the death of A.J. Jewell in October. Richardson’s attorney asked the judge this week to dismiss the charge after an autopsy revealed that Richardson may not have been the primary actor in causing Jewell’s death

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Jewell is best known for being the former fiancé of Kandi Buress, a member of the “Real Housewives of Atlanta”. Police say a fist fight between Jewell and Richardson broke out in the parking lot of Body Tap on October 2. Jewell died at a hospital several hours later which sparked Richardson’s arrest. The Fulton County Medical Examiner released an autopsy report last week which revealed that Jewell suffered from an uncommon sickle cell trait which was the principal cause of death. However, the medical examiner still classified Jewell’s death as a homicide.

Richardson’s attorney, Dennis Scheib, filed a motion on Monday for the voluntary manslaughter charge to be dropped. Scheib claims that Paul Howard, the Fulton County District Attorney, has lost objectivity in the matter since he refuses to acknowledge the medical examiner’s findings. Howard intends to verify the sickle cell trait finding by exhuming Jewell’s body and performing a second autopsy. His office has stated that the decision of whether to prosecute Richardson will depend on the second autopsy’s report. Richardson is currently out on bond pending Howard’s decision.

Our criminal defense lawyers have successfully represented numerous clients who have been accused of voluntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is similar to murder except that the defendant commits the act under an irresistible and sudden urge due to some provocation. As in this case, the charge is often levied against people who were involved in fights that resulted in a death. A good criminal defense attorney will conduct a thorough investigation into whether some medical condition or intoxication contributed to the death and whether the defendant was simply acting in self defense.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon, Madison and Savannah. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Page Pate was recently the Chairman of the Criminal Law Section of the Atlanta Bar Association.

On Friday, a Houston County jury decided that Mario Harris was not guilty of murdering Stephen Register outside a Warner Robins Buffalo’s in December of 2007. The defense argued that Harris was acting in self-defense when he stabbed and killed Register.

The Macon Telegraph has the story.

Harris was facing charges of malice murder, felony murder, possession of a knife during the commission of a crime, aggravated assault and manslaughter. The charges stemmed from an incident in which Harris unexpectedly met his half-sister and the man she was dating inside the restaurant. Moments later the boyfriend and two other men, including Register, charged Harris in the parking lot. Harris testified that he stabbed Register because he feared that the men were going to kill him. He also told jurors that he thought one of the men may have had a gun. Register received a single stab wound just below the chest and died six hours later at the hospital.

The jury deliberated for only 30 minutes before deciding to find Harris not guilty on all counts. The jury later told the attorneys that there was simply no evidence to prove that Harris was the initial aggressor. Under Georgia law, malice murder generally carries a sentence of imprisonment for life, or in the alternative, the prosecutor may choose to seek the death penalty. Frank Hogue was the defense lawyer and did an outstanding job representing his client.

Our criminal defense attorneys have won many acquittals and dismissals for clients charged with serious violent crimes including murder, aggravated assault and manslaughter. As seen in this case, murder and violent crime charges are often levied against people who were simply defending themselves or others. Under Georgia law, a successful self-defense claim will justify any death or harm that the defendant may have caused. To prove self-defense, a good criminal defense attorney will conduct an independent and in-depth investigation which may include interviewing all relevant witnesses, examining physical evidence and retaining qualified medical and psychological experts.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Page Pate was recently the Chairman of the Criminal Law Section of the Atlanta Bar Association.

On Tuesday, a DeKalb County jury acquitted a man of murdering a 2-year-old. The child was killed in early 2007 by a blow to the stomach that caused her internal organs to rupture.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Rodney Terrell Hood was arrested for the death Maya Johnson and charged with cruelty to children, aggravated assault, felony murder and malice murder. Hood had been living with Maya’s mother for a few months in an apartment. Hood’s three children who ranged in age from 3 to 5 also lived in the apartment. On the night Maya was killed, her mother had gone out for the evening and left Hood in charge of the kids. Sometime while she was out, Maya sustained a blow to the abdomen which nearly caused her organs to explode.

Hood’s attorney, Corinne M. Mull, argued that one of the other children caused the fatal blow and not Hood. Mull produced evidence that one of the boys was removed from a day care for kicking a child in the head. Another boy was taken off a bus for kicking a child in the face. Most importantly, Mull showed that one child had previously jumped off a piece of furniture and landed on Maya’s abdomen. That incident scarred her pancreas. Mull argued that whichever child caused the scarred pancreas was also the child that caused her death.

The prosecution had Maya’s mother testify that Hood fled the morning after Maya died. However, the defense countered the mother’s testimony by discrediting her. Mull showed that the mother failed to protect Maya from previous abuse, and that Maya lost custody of the three other children. The prosecution even admitted that she was not a very good mother. After the verdict was read, the prosecution still maintained that there was no evidence to support the claim that one of the three children killed Maya.

Our criminal defense attorneys have won numerous acquittals for clients who have been charged with serious violent crimes. In murder cases, a good defense lawyer will track down, interview, obtain criminal histories and employ the help of investigators and experts when investigating the backgrounds of all parties involved. Such diligence can often lead to a dismissal or acquittal, as it did in this case.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Page Pate was recently the Chairman of the Criminal Law Section of the Atlanta Bar Association.

Frederick Richardson faced a magistrate judge this week for allegedly killing Ashley “A.J.” Jewell. Jewell was the former fiancé of Kandi Burruss who is the newest member of The Real Housewives of Atlanta. He reportedly died several hours after fighting Richardson in the parking lot of an Atlanta strip club.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

On Tuesday, Magistrate Sylvia McCoy ordered that Richardson be held without bond until his next court appearance on October 20 due to the nature of the crime. Richardson’s attorney, Dennis Scheib, argued that the charge of voluntary manslaughter should be dismissed, since the medical examiner has yet to determine a cause of death. Police believe the two men got into a disagreement on Friday over a business decision at the strip club, Body Tap, which then escalated into a fight in the parking lot. Jewell died several hours later at Piedmont Hospital. Richardson sustained a broken finger.

Richardson had been the general manager at the club since May, and Jewell was seeking to buy an interest in the club. Scheib believes that Jewell started the original argument, and that sometime prior to the fight Jewell had brandished a handgun and pulled the slide back in front of Richardson while in Richardson’s office. Scheib also believes that later in the day Jewell started the fight in the parking lot, and that after the fight was over, Jewell walked away under his own power. While police believe the parking lot fight led to the death of Jewell, Scheib maintains that no one knows what killed him.

Our criminal defense attorneys have successfully defended many clients who have been charged with voluntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is essentially several of the same elements as a murder charge, except that the defendant acts under a sudden and irresistible passion as the result of some provocation. In many voluntary manslaughter cases, a good criminal defense attorney will argue that the defendant acted in self-defense of himself or others. Under Georgia law, a successful self-defense claim justifies a death that may have occurred as the result of the defendant’s actions.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Page Pate was recently the Chairman of the Criminal Law Section of the Atlanta Bar Association.

On Tuesday, jurors in a Chatham County courtroom heard testimony of how a Savannah man urged the killing of a convenient store clerk during an armed robbery.

The Savannah Morning News has the story.

On December 23, 2005, Vipin Patel, 65, was gunned down while working at his Kwik Way Food Mart in Garden City during an apparent armed robbery. Prosecutors believe four men entered the convenient store with the intention of robbing it while a fifth man remained outside in a getaway car. After the shooting, the getaway car ran out of gas and the men had to run from the scene on foot.

It is alleged that the shooter, 23 year-old Hector Gibson, fired his gun at the urging of 35 year-old Harry Roosevelt Newkirk. It was Newkirk’s cousin, 23 year-old Anthony Gerald Haynes, who told jurors that Newkirk instructed Gibson to shoot Patel, and that Newkirk was one of the men who had planned the robbery. Prosecutors also offered evidence showing Newkirk carrying the store’s safe out the front door immediately following the shooting.

Newkirk’s defense attorney argued that Newkirk was by himself when the other men enticed him into joining. Defense counsel also alleged that prosecutors made deals with the co-defendants in exchange for testimony against Newkirk. In fact, Haynes was able to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter in return for his testimony against Newkirk and the other men. Newkirk’s attorney also introduced evidence showing that Haynes had given conflicting statements about what had occurred.

Gibson, the shooter, was convicted of murder last year.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Page Pate was recently the Chairman of the Criminal Law Section of the Atlanta Bar Association.

New York authorities are seeking to extradite Raoul Desmin Cooper, 38, of Cobb County for a murder which occurred 18 years ago. New York and Georgia authorities arrested Cooper Wednesday night in Cobb, but New York authorities returned home empty handed as Cooper fights extradition.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The 1991 case stems from the shooting death of a 17-year-old victim in New York City. Authorities say the teenager was shot in the face by two men who wanted his 8-ball jacket. At the time, 8-ball jackets were very popular and led to numerous robberies. In late 2007 or early 2008, detectives received tips on the cold case which led them to Cooper and another man who has already been charged.

Cooper moved to Georgia in 1998 to be closer to family and has held a job installing fiber optic cable. Since moving to Georgia, he has lived in eight different cities in the metro area although detectives say he was not trying to hide.

On Wednesday night, Cooper thought he was meeting police in a vacant parking lot in Mableton to discuss a child neglect case. Upon his arrival, he was immediately surrounded and arrested by police from New York City, Cobb County, and a SWAT team. Cooper now faces the charge of second degree murder in New York which carries a sentence of 25 years to life.

New York detectives attempted to bring Cooper back to New York on Friday but were unable to do so as Cooper fights extradition. The governors of New York and Georgia will now have to decide how to handle extradition. For the time being, Cooper remains in the Cobb County jail.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Page Pate was recently the Chairman of the Criminal Law Section of the Atlanta Bar Association.

Two Fulton County sheriff’s deputies were arrested today for allegedly beating an inmate and lying to FBI agents who conducted an investigation into the beating.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The jailers, Robert Hill and Early Glenn, were arrested at the Fulton County Jail. They have been charged with violating the inmate’s civil rights, obstructing justice, filing a false report, and making false statements to federal agents.

The two deputies are scheduled to make an appearance before a federal magistrate judge later today.

Our firm has represented several law enforcement officers charged with similar crimes in the past. These cases can be very difficult to prosecute and prove. The credibility of the witnesses becomes the most critical issue.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Page Pate was recently the Chairman of the Criminal Law Section of the Atlanta Bar Association.

A Georgia criminal defense lawyer recently won a bank robbery trial in Floyd County for a Texas man accused of armed robbery and aggravated assault charges.

The Rome News Tribune has the story.

John Edinbyrd was accused by prosecutors of being the getaway driver in the robbery of a Citizens First Bank in Rome. Edinbyrd pleaded not guilty to the charges while his codefendant, Shawn Colson, pleaded guilty last week. Edinbyrd testified that he was the unwitting participant in the bank robbery, and that it was only after they had left the scene did he realize what the Colson had done.

Colson testified that Edinbyrd was the mastermind behind that robbery and that Edinbyrd forced him into committing the act. Edinbyrd claims that the two were in Rome looking at used cars, and while in Rome, Colson decided spontaneously to rob the bank.

The defense argued that Edinbyrd never once stepped inside the bank, and that the only thing linking him to the crime was Colson’s statements. The jury deliberated for three hours before returning the not guilty verdict.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

A Coweta jury found Jason Veitch of Newman not guilty of felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm while in the commission of a felony. The charges stem from an incident in June of last year in which Veitch shot a man to death near a house Veitch was building. Veitch was represented by Newnan attorneys Mike Kam and Ron Harwell.

The Newnan, Georgia Times-Herald has the story.

In the weeks leading up to the shooting, Veitch had reported theft of copper wire and pipe from homes he was building. The day before the shooting he realized four more homes had been hit with losses of up to $6,000 per house. He met with a Coweta deputy who told him he needed to catch the thieves in the act. Veitch claims the deputy told him to make a citizen’s arrest and hold the thieves until law enforcement could arrive. The deputy also allegedly told Veitch that he should not shoot or injure the thieves. That night Veitch waited in the woods next to his job site with a 12 gauge shotgun and .22 caliber pistol.

In the early morning, Veitch saw an unfamiliar van park in front of a house under construction. Three drywall workers that had been assigned to work on Veitch’s homes by a drywall company were inside the van. The workers claim that they were going to sleep in the van and start work in the morning instead of driving back to their home in Norcross. Veitch called 911 and reported a robbery. He then called his father-in-law who came to the scene before the police could arrive. Upon arriving, his father-in-law ordered the men to exit the van.

Veitch, fearing for his father-in-law’s safety, came out of the woods and fired a shot from the shotgun in the air. Two of the men got on the ground and put their hands behind their heads. The third man, Gaston Gonzalez, got on the ground but kept trying to get back up. Veitch claims he began poking Gonzalez with the shotgun to keep him down. Veitch says that the shotgun went off on the second poke which resulted in a wound to the back of the neck. Veitch then called 911 and asked for an ambulance; however, his father-in-law drove Gonzalez to Piedmont Newnan Hospital where he was pronounced dead.

Veitch claimed that he had never seen the van before and that he did not recognize the three men. Veitch also argued that workers never sleep on a job-site. The overall theme of the defense was that Veitch was acting within the law, since he feared there was a threat to himself and his father-in-law. The prosecution contended that Veitch was responsible for what happened, because he was the one who initiated the confrontation and the actions which led to the death of Gonzalez.

The owner of the drywall company that employed the three men felt the jury outcome would have been different if Gonzalez had been white or black.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

A 19 year old Bryan County teen will stand trial for three counts of vehicular homicide. Jury selection is set to begin this morning.

The Savannah Morning News has the story.

Tam Duc Le also faces two counts of reckless driving, one count of failure to maintain lane, and one count of driving too fast for conditions. Prosecutors allege that his actions on March 12, 2007 led to the deaths of thee teenage girls. Two of the girls were sisters.

The Bryan County Sheriff’s Office reported that Le was driving his 1998 Chevrolet Cavalier on Ga. 119 when he lost control. The car crossed over the center line after going around a sharp curve and struck a Ford F-250 pickup head-on. The three teenage girls were in his car and died at the scene of the accident. The four teens were all students at Bryan County High School which was only two miles from the accident.

Le spent five weeks in a coma and was arrested in September 2007. He has since entered a not guilty plea and is set to stand trial April 23. Le faces 15 years in prison for each of the first-degree vehicular homicide charges.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Our firm is also listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers by Martindale-Hubbell.

The Georgia Court of Appeals was faced with deciding whether a trial court properly granted a defendant immunity when the alleged victim recanted her story and the state failed to produce any other evidence at a pretrial hearing. The court ruled that the defendant was entitled to immunity, since there was evidence for the trial court to find that defendant acted in self-defense prior to trial.

In State v. Yapo, the defendant, Yapo, and his girlfriend got into a fight on the way to a convenient store. The girlfriend held her car door open while Yapo drove which forced Yapo to pull the car over. The girlfriend then left the car and found a large bolt which she threw at the windshield and shattered it. She then got into the back-driver side seat and kicked the driver’s seat. This forced Yapo into the steering wheel and broke the seat. Yapo then retrained his girlfriend by grabbing her and giving her a “bear hug.” Someone called the police, and the girlfriend allegedly told the police at the scene that Yapo had choked her. From this incident, Yapo was arrested for battery and simple battery for choking his girlfriend.

Yapo moved to dismiss the battery charges by claiming he acted in self-defense and was therefore immune. At a pretrial evidentiary hearing, the girlfriend testified as to the facts stated above; however, she denied telling the police that she had been choked. The State had no other witnesses or evidence to offer the trial judge. The judge found the girlfriend’s testimony credible and ruled that Yapo was immune from the battery charges. The State appealed.

The State argued that the trial court erred in granting immunity, since the ruling will harm domestic violence prosecutions in the future. The State argued that domestic violence victims often recant prior testimony even though the alleged crimes actually occurred. However, the court reasoned that Georgia law clearly grants immunity to a defendant who acts in self-defense. Immunity for acting in self-defense is decided by a trial judge prior to trial, and the defendant must prove he acted in self-defense by the greater weight of the evidence. At Yapo’s pretrail hearing, the trial court found the girlfriend’s testimony to be credible and the state offered no other evidence. Thus, the appellate court concluded that this was enough evidence to properly grant immunity.

This opinion is important because the court recognized the defendant's right to a pretrial hearing on the self-defense claim. This type of immunity is provided by statute, but it is an unusual provision in Georgia criminal law.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Our firm is also listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers by Martindale-Hubbell.

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently reversed the convictions of a defendant after the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the defendant’s self-defense claim.

In Harris v. State, the defendant was convicted by a jury of four counts of aggravated assault, three counts of aggravated battery, and two counts of burglary. The defendant’s sole defense at trial was self-defense and accident. Yet, the trial court judge failed to instruct the jury on this sole defense. Under Georgia law, a jury must be instructed on a defendant’s sole defense even if the defendant did not request for the jury to be instructed. The Court of Appeals reversed the defendant’s conviction as a result and sent the case back to the trial court to be retried.

Our defense attorneys have handled many serious criminal cases, including murder and aggravated assault. When our defense involves a claim that the client was defending himself, it is vitally important to have the trial judge properly instruct the jury on the law governing self-defense claims. Perhaps this decision will help insure that judges always give this charge in self-defense cases.

Gwinnett County Superior Court Judge Michael Clark set bond for the four Meadowcreek High School students charged with the armed robbery of a man at the Orchard Park Apartments in Norcross last month. The students are all current or former members of the school's football team. The bond was set at $50,000, and the judge imposed a condition of house arrest and ankle monitoring.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Bond in armed robbery cases is not automatic and it usually takes some time to get a full hearing in court. Georgia law provides that pretrial bond in certain serious crimes (like armed robbery) can only be set by a superior court judge. (For most felonies, bond can be set by a schedule at the jail or by a local magistrate judge.) Because superior court judges are the only judges who can set bond in this type of case, it also generally takes longer for defendants to get bond hearings when they are charged with armed robbery. In some jurisdictions, however, the local superior court judges empower certain magistrate judges to set bond in these cases. That often shortens the time that the defendant has to wait for a hearing, but it doesn't necessarily improve the chances that bond will be granted. Like so many other things in the Georgia criminal justice system, a lot depends on the particular judge conducting the hearing.

Our firm has successfully handled many armed robbery cases. We know from experience that the issue of bond is vitally important, not just to the person in jail but also to his or her family. If bond is granted, it also helps the lawyer and client communicate more freely and work to build a better defense. There is also less pressure to enter a quick guilty plea simply to avoid more jail time.

Now that bond has been set for these defendants, the case will remain pending until the DA's office obtains a grand jury indictment. In Gwinnett County, that process can take several months.

A recent decision in Georgia helps clarify what is required to sustain a kidnapping conviction.

In Garza v. State, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the kidnapping convictions of Joey Garza, since the movements of his two victims were not adequate to constitute kidnapping under Georgia law.

According to the facts of the case, Garza entered the home of a woman and her three children after stating that he had left his wallet in the woman’s van. Garza locked the door, pulled out a handgun which he put against the woman’s head, and threatened to shoot her. He then struck the woman’s head with the gun which caused her to fall. While on the ground, Garza bound her wrists and ankles and placed her in a chair. After some time, Garza fell asleep and the woman and her two year old son managed to escape and alert police. The police entered the home and managed to rescue the woman’s infant. However, her nine year old son remained inside. When the police entered the home, Garza held the boy’s shirt and moved him to a different bedroom. Eventually, police negotiated the release of the boy for a six pack of beer. Garza was convicted of two counts of kidnapping, four counts of false imprisonment, and one count of aggravated assault.

Garza’s attorneys argued that the movement of the woman falling and being placed in a chair along with the boy being moved to a different room could not constitute kidnapping. Georgia law had previously recognized even a slight movement of the victim as being enough to convict someone of kidnapping. The Court was concerned with this standard, since a relatively minor crime like false imprisonment could turn into a major crime such as kidnapping with the smallest movement of the victim.

The Court overruled the old standard, and it instituted a new test which other states have adopted known as the Berry test. Part of the test examines the duration of the movement and whether the movement occurred during and inherent to a separate offense. Using this new standard, the Court partially reasoned that the woman falling and then being placed in a chair were movements of minimal duration, and the Court also determined that these movements were incidental to the charge of false imprisonment. The Court reached the same conclusion about the boy’s movement to a different bedroom within the house. Thus, these movements did not constitute kidnapping under the new standard.

Our firm has won criminal trials for people charged with kidnapping where the facts do not support a true kidnapping allegation. We hope judges and prosecutors will consider this decision before allowing a questionable kidnapping case to go to trial. There are many other crimes that may fit a certain set of facts. Trying to stretch the case into a kidnapping charge is not usually the best way to win a conviction, or promote justice.

It's getting close to the end. The prosecutor and defense lawyer have started their closing arguments in the Brian Nichols' murder trial in Atlanta. After the arguments, Judge Bodiford will instruct the jury on the relevant legal principles (often a point of contention among the lawyers). Then, it's in the jury's hands.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

It's been a long trial, but not nearly as long as the lawyers first predicted.

Once the verdict on the guilt/innocence phase is returned, the trial will move into the "penalty phase." During that part of the trial, the jury will be asked to determine whether Nichols receives the death penalty (rare in Fulton County), life in prison without parole, or life with the possibility of parole (in 30 years).

Either way, expect the trial to be over well before Christmas (the judge's goal from the beginning).

A recent challenge to a trial court's order denying pretrial immunity was denied by Georgia's highest court.

The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed with a trial court ruling that denied Atlanta police officer Raymond S. Bunn’s motion to dismiss an indictment for murder. The indictment stemmed from an incident in July of 2002 in which Bunn and his partner came across a man breaking into a vehicle. Upon noticing the officers, the alleged burglar climbed into a van and began racing towards Bunn and his partner. The officers ordered the van to stop, but the alleged burglar refused to yield. Officer Bunn then discharged his weapon killing the man.

Over three years later, Bunn was indicted for murder and other charges related to the incident. Bunn argued that the three year delay had caused witnesses’ memories to fade which violated his right to a speedy trial, and that the case should be dismissed as a result. Bunn also argued that he was immune from prosecution under a theory that he was justified in using deadly force. The Court refused to dismiss the case, since the prosecution is generally free to bring a charge of murder at any point in time. However, the Court ruled that the trial judge used an incorrect standard in determining if Bunn was justified in using deadly force, and the Court directed the trial judge to reevaluate immunity using the correct standard.

Our firm has been involved in several criminal cases in Georgia involving law enforcement officers. We have represented police officers charged with a variety of different crimes. Our defense depends on the particular facts, but we have been successful in keeping several of our clients from being indicted by preparing them to make statements before the grand jury at the time it considers the DA's proposed indictment. While it is possible to obtain immunity prior to trial, it is difficult. We don't think this case will really change that fact.

More drama in the Brian Nichols death penalty case currently pending in Atlanta.

Judge Bodiford recently granted the State's request to have Brian Nichols interviewed by a state doctor. The State requested this examination so that they would be able to present expert testimony to counter the mental illness defense that Nichols' lawyers intend to present at trial

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

This is not a surprising request, and it is routinely granted in cases where the defendant intends to raise any type of mental illness defense through the use of medical experts. Once the defendant notifies the State of its intent to raise this defense, then the State has the opportunity to have its own expert examine the defendant.

The only thing unusual about this request is the timing. The State has known for a long time that Nichols' defense attorneys intended to raise a mental illness defense.

I was interviewed yesterday on WABE (Atlanta's public radio station) about this development. I was asked why Nichols' defense lawyers would want to prevent the State from having Nichols interviewed by another doctor. Nichols' attorneys, like most criminal defense lawyers, would want to prevent the examination because the request came so late in the process. Nichols' lawyers have also argued that they did not want to subject Nichols to questioning that might incriminate him in the offense.

While these are certainly understandable concerns, Judge Bodiford granted the State's request. He did, however, did put some limitations on the length of the examination.

The trial is still supposed to start this Summer.

Nichols' criminal defense attorneys are trying to recuse their second judge from presiding over the Brian Nichols trial. The lawyers' recusal motion is based on comments Judge Bodiford made at the time of the courthouse shooting. He was reported to say that the crime was a "brutal murder," and that the death of "his friend" hit close to home. The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

I can't imaging anyone would argue that this crime was not a brutal murder (regardless of who committed it). And it is very different to say you are a friend of the victim than to prejudge the guilt of the person on trial. (That was the reason the last judge had to step aside.) Georgia law recognizes this difference, and does not require a judge to step down just because he was a friend of the victim.

Last week, I was asked to comment on this development by WABE, Atlanta's National Public Radio affiliate. I said what most other Atlanta criminal lawyers would say - there is no chance that Judge Bodiford will recuse himself from this case. He knew about his relationship with Judge Barnes well before he took this assignment, and he almost certainly consulted with the judge that appointed him about any conflicts.

Instead of simply denying the motion and requiring the lawyers to try to appeal that ruling, Judge Bodiford asked another judge to step in and consider the recusal request. According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Judge Dan Coursey, Jr. of Dekalb County was named today as the judge who will consider the recusal motion.

Despite these delays, Judge Bodiford hopes to keep the trial scheduled for July. We'll see.

Just a few hours ago, a Houston County, Georgia jury convicted a husband and wife of felony murder for the death of a friend who had overdosed on drugs they provided her. The Macon Georgia newspaper has the story and the verdict returned this afternoon. The Atlanta Journal Constitution also covered the trial.

The case sounds like a scene straight out of Pulp Fiction, but it's true and it's tragic. The convicted couple were with their friend and gave her a syringe with a significant amount of Oxycontin. The friend injected herself with the drug and died shortly thereafter. Apparently, she had been drinking alcohol earlier (her BAC was .198), and the Oxycontin put her over the edge. No one was trying to kill her, but the couple panicked when the girl had a bad reaction. They left her on the front lawn to die.

The story is a tragic example of how the felony murder statute works in Georgia criminal cases. In Georgia, a person commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he causes the death of another human. There is no need for malice or intent to kill. You don't have to pull the trigger to be convicted of murder in Georgia. And the penalty - life in prison - is the same.

In the Houston County case, the couple were convicted of felony murder because their friend died as a result of the drugs they gave her. Providing the drugs is a felony (unlawful distribution of a controlled substance), and their friend died as a result. The judge sentenced them both to life in prison. It's the same sentence they would have received if they had shot their friend in the head with a gun.

Our firm has handled several felony murder cases, and we have one pending now in Dekalb County, Georgia. In that case, our client is alleged to have been engaged in an armed robbery that caused the death of the person being robbed. The fact that our client was not the shooter doesn't matter. It wouldn't even matter if our client was just the getaway driver. Anyone involved in the commission of a felony that results in the death of another person is guilty of felony murder and faces life in prison if convicted.

Because the penalty is so severe, most criminal defense lawyers will try to negotiate a plea to a lesser charge if there is significant evidence that their client was involved in a crime that led to a murder. If their client was only a minor player in the underlying felony, a plea to a lesser offense can usually be obtained.

Perhaps this couple was offered such a plea and gambled on a trial. Sometimes that works, but as this Middle Georgia couple just learned, you usually get the max if you lose. It's a tragic end to a tragic case.