In a November 2025, decision, the Georgia Supreme Court brushed aside a defendant’s complaints and upheld his conviction.
The defendant in this case was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 2021 for beating and strangling his wife so severely that, according to the coroner, she sustained nearly fifty internal injuries. Those internal, a medical examiner found, would have required a “great amount of force,” such as kicking, punching, and stomping. Prosecutors contended that all of this happened in front of a 12-year-old child.
According to evidence presented at trial, the couple’s abusive relationship began in a DeKalb County apartment. It continued at another apartment in Fulton County, though the state Supreme Court noted “there was strong evidence that she was already dead or near death due to internal bleeding and the effects of strangulation by the time she was brought to the apartment in Fulton County.”
When they arrived at the Fulton County apartment, prosecutors claim the man dragged his wife up the stairs by her hair, “slamming her head… on the concrete stairs,” then left her lying on the living room floor. The 12-year-old saw she was bleeding from the side of her head and used a rag to try to stop it. Another child at the Fulton County apartment was also a witness to the scene.
The man appealed his conviction, arguing the evidence against him in trial was insufficient and that DeKalb County was not the proper venue for the trial. The Georgia Supreme Court rejected both these arguments.
“The evidence presented at trial included (the 12-year-old’s) testimony that the defendant ‘hit[],’ ‘kick[ed] and stomp[ed] on,’ and ‘chok[ed]’ his wife until ‘she was [a]sleep,’ and his own statement that he choked her. And although he asserted that she was injured by falling on the stairs, the emergency room doctor and medical examiner testified that her multiple injuries, including injuries consistent with being choked and internal injuries requiring a ‘great amount of force,’ could not have been caused by a single fall,” the opinion written by Justice Sarah Hawkins Warren states. “Thus, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a malice murder conviction.”
Procedural Defenses in Criminal Cases
The procedural defense in this case (improper venue) didn’t sway the court. However, procedural defenses are normally good defenses, especially in cases that involve gruesome facts. Procedural defenses allow judges to rule on cases before they hear the gory details.
Criminal cases must be filed in the county where the offense occurred. In the above case, the defendant argued that prosecutors must file the case in Fulton County. That’s where the wife was declared dead. But the court determined that the offense was complete in DeKalb County. The journey to Fulton County was tantamount to moving a dead body.
Fraud cases, such as phishing cases, are a good example. These offenses are complete when a defendant sends a message. It doesn’t matter where the defendant is when s/he receives the money.
This procedural defense is also common in police pursuit matters. If John robs a bank in Fulton County and officers catch up with him in Cobb County, the criminal law process, namely arrest and jail release, begins in the wrong county. When the wheels begin turning in one jurisdiction, they normally don’t change gears and move to another one.
Usually, improper venue is not technically a “defense.” In our Fulton/Cobb example, prosecutors may simply dismiss the Cobb County case and refile it in Fulton County, at least in most cases. However, to many prosecutors, making a favorable deal with a Marietta criminal defense lawyer is better than going back to the starting line.
Improper venue is a legal defense if prosecutors don’t catch the mistake early. The double jeopardy clause comes into play. Jeopardy usually attaches when:
- The jury is empaneled and sworn,
- The first witness takes the stand in a bench trial,
- The court accepts a guilty or no contest plea, and
- When a juvenile court begins hearing evidence.
Once a case passes the point of no return, the defendant cannot be retried, except in very rare situations.
Other procedural defenses include Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations. Police officers normally need valid warrants to search property and seize evidence. The Fifth Amendment gives defendants the absolute right to remain silent, at least in most cases.
Substantive Defenses
A Supreme Court Justice once remarked that eyewitness testimony was the most compelling and least reliable form of evidence in criminal cases. A disinterested witness sharing what s/he saw and heard has an almost mystical effect on a criminal case. However, most eyewitnesses aren’t disinterested and/or aren’t sharing what they heard or saw.
A relationship with a defendant or alleged victim is the most common bias. Children will say almost anything to protect their parents.
We should point out that a child’s, parent’s, or spouse’s testimony is often accurate, at least to an extent (more on that below). However, this testimony is not legally reliable. Although a broken clock is accurate twice a day, a broken clock is clearly unreliable.
Relationships with law enforcement agencies or special interest groups, normally hate groups, also create possible bias. A Marietta criminal defense lawyer only needs possible bias. The burden of proof (beyond any reasonable doubt) is so high in criminal cases that only squeaky-clean witnesses are legally reliable.
As for the testimony itself, factfinders must always take eyewitness accounts with a grain of salt. Our eyes aren’t video cameras, and our ears aren’t recording devices. We all see and hear things selectively. Inaccurate testimony is especially an issue when a witness tells the same story over and over. Details become blurred in these situations.
Recall, or the lack thereof, is also an issue for many eyewitnesses. Eight or ten months, or even more, might elapse between the incident date and the trial date. If a witness has no independent recollection of an event (i.e. a detail not mentioned in the police report or other document), the witness is ineligible.
Because eyewitness testimony is so iffy, many prosecutors rely on surveillance videos to at least corroborate eyewitness accounts. This strategy is very effective if prosecutors lay the proper foundation. If a Marietta criminal defense lawyer successfully erodes this foundation, electronic evidence often does more harm than good, at least from a prosecutor’s perspective.
Procedural and/or substantive defenses are available in most criminal cases. 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.
