Closing Argument - Bias of Witness and Punishment

January 23rd, 2006 Rob Leonard Posted in Case Law Updates |

Palma v. State, S05A0809 (December 8, 2005).  At trial, Defense Counsel was prohibited from arguing the punishment that the State’s witness was escaping by testifying in the trial.  The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that potential sentences are fair game as it relates to State’s witnesses because it is arguing bias and interest, not punishment.

 


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

« Expungements and Criminal Histories.
Reciprocal Discovery in Felony Cases »