The Georgia Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Presley v. State ranges from the tendentious to the just plain goofy. It tortures precedents until they yield the result desired. It looks at the facts with pursed lips and censorious eyes.
It is written as if it related to a visiting Martian rather than a frail, fallible human being. The notion that a lawyer can argue after the judge has already ruled is frightening. Only a lawyer courting a citation for contumacy would do so. Eric Presley’s trial lawyer has done so and has been locked up for his lese majeste.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
