Insights: Publications A “Critical” Question of State Law: Georgia’s Ambiguous Treatment of Initial Appearance Hearings and the Implications of Bail Reform
Georgia Law Review, Volume 54, Issue 1
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel at critical stages of a proceeding. While the U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed whether initial bail hearings are critical stages of a proceeding, several states have elected to provide greater protection for criminal defendants by holding that bail hearings are critical stages. However, Georgia has avoided this question, as Georgia has held that initial appearance hearings, in which questions of bail are often decided, are “not often” critical stages of a proceeding. Logically, it follows that initial appearance hearings must sometimes be critical stages of a proceeding. This Note argues that initial appearance hearings, insofar as they encompass questions of bail, should be considered critical stages. In so doing, this Note examines Georgia’s history of providing greater protection to criminal defendants than the federal government and the implications of bail reform.
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.