Recusal Request Was Too Late, High Court Says

Justices reject drug defendant's argument about ex parte communication

, Daily Report


The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday rejected a drug defendant's argument for a new trial, concluding that the defendant waited too long to ask the trial judge to recuse because she had heard an ex parte communication that the defendant could be dangerous.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

Originally appeared in print as Recusal request was too late, high court says Recusal request was too late, high court says

What's being said

  • not available

    If the Court of Appeals decision as written by Judge Branch was correct, in any case with 2 or more defendants, if you don‘t like the trial judge, just have one party‘s counsel say something to the judge about another defendant and the judge should disqualify him or herself sua sponta? Surely you jest!

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202647271965

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.