In December 2025, police and prosecutors closed the book on a 2021 home invasion in Canton. Or did they?
On New Year’s Day 2021, investigators responded to a home invasion call from a residence in Canton, Georgia. At the scene, they found a bruised woman with her wrists zip tied. Initially, the man’s 61-year-old ex-husband told investigators he found her on the back porch and promptly called 911.
After the alleged victim told investigators she suspected her ex was the home invader, they searched his apartment and found several incriminating items, such as zip ties, the book “Seven Ways to Be Her Hero,” and a computer browsing history that included terms like
A crime lab later matched the zip ties found in the apartment with the zip ties used in the home invasion. Additionally, after tracing transactions with his debit card, investigators found surveillance footage of the man purchasing zip ties at a hardware store about thirty-six hours before the crime.
During their search, investigators also found the book “Seven Ways to Be Her Hero,” a browsing history that included terms like “How to change the sound of your voice,” “How to get sympathy from your ex,” and “Cancer letter from hospital,” and a fake email account used to generate a fake cancer diagnosis letter. Investigators believed these items established motive.
Later, Det. Dakota Lyvers confronted the man about these things. Instead of answering Lyvers, the man said, “I don’t know if I should talk to you guys anymore. I’m starting to get a really bad feeling.”
Cherokee County Deputy Chief Assistant District Attorney Rachel Ashe called the case “a prosecutor’s dream” because the evidence was “overwhelming.” The defendant pleaded guilty to 14 criminal counts and received a 70-year sentence — 25 years in prison followed by 45 years of probation.
How Circumstantial Evidence Is Used in Georgia Criminal Cases
Criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence often don’t hold up in court. The burden of proof, beyond any reasonable doubt, is too high.
Georgia’s definition of BARD is complex and not very helpful to a Marietta criminal defense lawyer. The Pattern Jury Instructions define “reasonable doubt” as “a doubt based on common sense and reason, for which a juror can give a reason, arising from the evidence or lack of evidence, leaving the mind unsettled and not firmly convinced of guilt, not an imaginary doubt, requiring the prosecution to prove guilt to a moral certainty for conviction.”
The core of this definition is pretty much useless. Saying that a reasonable doubt is based on reason and common sense is like saying a white horse is a horse that’s white.
Direct evidence, like a reliable eyewitness, is usually damning evidence. Circumstantial evidence, by itself, usually doesn’t meet the BARD standard. But, at some point, jurors cannot ignore an avalanche of circumstances and coincidences. James Bond author Ian Fleming once wrote that, “once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and thrice is enemy action.”
The evidence in the above case is a good example. Anyone could buy zip ties at Home Depot that might match the ones used in a certain incident. But when that evidence is added to the other circumstantial evidence in the case, the outcome is different.
Challenging Primary Evidence Through Search Warrant Defenses
So, in a circumstantial evidence case, a Marietta criminal defense lawyer must remove as much evidence as possible, so in the words of Fleming, that “evidence” is either happenstance or coincidence.
Search warrant issues often exclude primary evidence, such as zip ties and books, in criminal cases.
Probable cause is one possible issue. Many warrants over-rely on informant’s statements, such as the opinion of an alleged criminal victim. The alleged victim may have a hunch that a certain person is responsible for a certain crime. But a hunch is not evidence. If a search warrant lacks a proper foundation, a Marietta criminal defense lawyer can exclude anything the police find.
The scope of the warrant is another possible issue. Did you notice that police investigators basically turned the defendant’s residence upside-down during the search? Usually, such broad searches exceed the scope of a search warrant. For example, if a warrant allows investigators to search for zip ties, they probably cannot rummage through bookshelves. They definitely cannot hack into website browsers.
To cure that problem, police officers often create another one. They combine the warrant with an owner consent warrant exception. They flash the warrant to the owner who then gives consent to search. But consent is a voluntary act. Officers cannot twist arms to obtain consent.
When Secondary Evidence Becomes Inadmissible in Court
Prosecutors often use secondary evidence to nail the metaphorical coffin shut. The surveillance footage of the defendant buying zip ties is an example of secondary evidence.
This critical proof in circumstantial evidence cases is often inadmissible in court. If the secondary evidence came from a bad search warrant, as outlined above, that secondary evidence is fruit from a poisonous tree.
So, a successful search warrant challenge essentially kills two birds with one stone. It takes out primary and secondary evidence, moving enemy action all the way down to happenstance.
Invoking the Fifth Amendment During Criminal Investigations
Asserting the Fifth Amendment means exercising the constitutional right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination. This protection applies not only during trials, but also during police questioning, investigations, and certain government proceedings.
When suspects, defendants, or witnesses assert the Fifth Amendment, they choose not to answer questions that could potentially be used against them in a criminal case. This right applies whether a person is guilty or innocent and does not require an arrest or formal charges. Importantly, asserting the Fifth Amendment is not an admission of guilt. This legal safeguard prevents coercion and protects individual rights.
Courts cannot punish someone simply for asserting this right, and juries generally may not draw negative conclusions from its use in criminal cases. A few exceptions, such as the refusal to submit a DUI chemical sample, apply in a few cases.
Under current law, saying something like, “I have a bad feeling about this” doesn’t properly assert the Fifth Amendment. Instead, suspects must clearly state their intent, with a phrase like, “I am invoking my right to remain silent,” or “I plead the Fifth.” Once asserted, law enforcement and government officials must stop questioning related to potential self-incrimination.
The state needs a lot of circumstantial evidence to obtain a conviction. For a free consultation with an experienced Marietta criminal defense attorney, contact The Phillips Law Firm, LLC. We routinely handle matters in Cobb County and nearby jurisdictions.
