Thorne v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1ConcurrenceRuffin, Judge
I concur fully with both the reasoning employed and the result reached by the majority. I write separately merely to emphasize the clear error in the trial court’s admission of the investigator’s testimony as to what Thorne’s attorney allegedly told him.
The relationship between a criminal defendant and his attorney is sacrosanct, and anything that undermines the integrity of that relationship should be soundly condemned. As the United States Supreme Court recognized in Penson v. Ohio,2
[o]f all rights that an accused person has, the right to be represented by counsel is by far the most…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Penson v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1988
- Wright v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1997
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.