About: Bell v. State

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: Bell v. State Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon

http://dbpedia.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FBell_v._State

Bell v. the State of Georgia, 227 Ga. 800, 183 S.E.2d 357 (1971) is one of several cases in which the Supreme Court of Georgia set forth the standard by which an extraordinary motion for a new trial is to be judged. In order for a defendant to succeed when making such a motion after having discovered , the defendant must show These six criteria have appeared in a number of other decisions of the Georgia Supreme Court, including Timberlake v. the State and the majority opinion in Davis v. the State (see Troy Anthony Davis).

Attributes	Values
rdf:type	yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Case107308889 yago:Event100029378 yago:Happening107283608 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity
rdfs:label	Bell v. State (en)
rdfs:comment	Bell v. the State of Georgia, 227 Ga. 800, 183 S.E.2d 357 (1971) is one of several cases in which the Supreme Court of Georgia set forth the standard by which an extraordinary motion for a new trial is to be judged. In order for a defendant to succeed when making such a motion after having discovered , the defendant must show These six criteria have appeared in a number of other decisions of the Georgia Supreme Court, including Timberlake v. the State and the majority opinion in Davis v. the State (see Troy Anthony Davis). (en)
name	Bell v. the State (en)
foaf:depiction
dcterms:subject	1971 in Georgia (U.S. state) U.S. state criminal procedure case law United States hearsay case law 1971 in United States case law Georgia (U.S. state) case law
Wikipage page ID	16428023 (xsd:integer)
Wikipage revision ID	918217841 (xsd:integer)
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage	1971 in Georgia (U.S. state) U.S. state criminal procedure case law United States hearsay case law Motion (legal) Supreme Court of Georgia (U.S. state) U.S. state Hearsay Jury 1971 in United States case law Death penalty Georgia (U.S. state) case law Verdict New trial Troy Anthony Davis Defense lawyer Exculpatory Timberlake v. the State dbr:New_evidence
Link from a Wikipage to an external page	http://www.lawskills.com/case/ga/id/13914
sameAs	Bell v. State Bell v. State Bell v. State
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:Quote dbt:Infobox_Court_Case dbt:US-case-law-stub
thumbnail	wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Flag_of_Georgia_(U.S._state).svg?width=300
citations	17280.0 (second)
court	Supreme Court of Georgia (U.S. state)
has abstract	Bell v. the State of Georgia, 227 Ga. 800, 183 S.E.2d 357 (1971) is one of several cases in which the Supreme Court of Georgia set forth the standard by which an extraordinary motion for a new trial is to be judged. In order for a defendant to succeed when making such a motion after having discovered , the defendant must show 1. * that the evidence has come to his knowledge since the trial; 2. * that it was not owing to the want of due diligence that he did not acquire it sooner; 3. * that it is so material that it would probably produce a different verdict; 4. * that it is not cumulative only; 5. * that the affidavit of the witness himself should be procured or its absence accounted for; and 6. * that a new trial will not be granted if the only effect of the evidence will be to impeach the credit of a witness. These six criteria have appeared in a number of other decisions of the Georgia Supreme Court, including Timberlake v. the State and the majority opinion in Davis v. the State (see Troy Anthony Davis). The case stemmed from an appeal for a conviction centered on child hearsay testimony. This court decision and similar ones in the same and other U.S. states are designed to ensure the finality of jury verdicts. It is therefore necessary for defense lawyers to present all exculpatory evidence at trial rather than bringing such evidence before the courts in a piecemeal manner; however, some have criticized the principle of finality of jury verdicts as increasing the possibility of errors in death penalty cases. (en)
date decided	1971-07-09 (xsd:date)
opinions	http://www.lawskills.com/case/ga/id/13914
prov:wasDerivedFrom	wikipedia-en:Bell_v._State?oldid=918217841&ns=0
page length (characters) of wiki page	3080 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf	wikipedia-en:Bell_v._State
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of	Bell v. the State
is Wikipage redirect of	Bell v. the State
is foaf:primaryTopic of	wikipedia-en:Bell_v._State

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (61 GB total memory, 49 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software