Skip to main content

Bright v. State

Citations

  • 265 Ga. 265
  • 455 S.E.2d 37

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • finding that even if the defendant had been exhibiting symptoms of drug withdrawal, that fact alone does not render the statement involuntary
  • noting that the requirements regarding an indigent’s request for scientific expert assistance are a corollary of the due process principles of Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U. S. 68 (105 SC 1087, 84 LE2d 53) (1985)
  • finding harmful error for failure to grant funds to hire a psychiatrist and toxicologist
  • finding harmful error for failure to grant funds to hire a psychiatrist and toxicologist
  • greater showing of mental health problems than in present case held inadequate even to entitle defendant to expert assistance in guilt-innocence phase
  • “the determination whether expert assistance is required at the penalty phase requires consideration of a different set of factors than the determination whether expert assistance is necessary at the guilt phase”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Carley, Hunstein, Sears, Thompson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

103 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

91 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Bright v. State

101 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.