Street v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Farmer v. Holton

    146 Ga. App. 102 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 17 times

    We find no merit in any of the grounds argued in Farmer's two appeals, and affirm the judgments of conviction. Street v. State, 238 Ga. 376 ( 233 S.E.2d 344) (1977). First Contempt

  2. Farmer v. Strickland

    652 F.2d 427 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 13 times
    Holding a judge was not unconstitutionally biased to find lawyer in contempt after a heated exchange during voir dire

    As we have concluded that the district court was correct in denying the petitioner's habeas corpus petition, we affirm. In September, 1977, Farmer was representing convicted murderer George Street, whose death sentence had been vacated by the United States Supreme Court, Street v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 995, 97 S.Ct. 520, 50 L.Ed.2d 606 (1976), and whose case had been remanded for resentencing to the Superior Court of Pierce County, Street v. State, 238 Ga. 376, 233 S.E.2d 344 (1977). The resentencing of Street included jury proceedings before the Honorable Elie L. Holton, Judge of the Pierce County Superior Court.

  3. Mooney v. State

    243 Ga. 373 (Ga. 1979)   Cited 130 times
    In Mooney v. State, 243 Ga. 373, 385 (254 S.E.2d 337) (1979), in a very lengthy analysis of pre-voir dire motions for change of venue, this court reiterated the holding set out in Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 (95 S.C. 2031, 44 L.Ed.2d 589) (1975) that a defendant is entitled to a panel of impartial jurors, but that this does not require that they be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved.

    Compare Presnell v. State, 241 Ga. 49, 53 ( 243 S.E.2d 496) (1978) (39 of 46 jurors examined had read of or discussed the case). We have canvassed this general issue recently in Coleman v. State, 237 Ga. 84, 86-93 ( 226 S.E.2d 911) (1976), and Street v. State, 237 Ga. 307, 308-311 ( 227 S.E.2d 750) vacated on other grounds, 429 U.S. 995 (1976), modified, 238 Ga. 376 (1977). We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to change venue after voir dire, because Mooney had made no showing that the jury selection process showed actual prejudice to a degree that rendered trial fundamentally unfair.