Brimberg v. Hartenfeld Bag Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that although the trial court erred by not weighing the second Barker-Doggett against the government, the trial court’s ruling still would be affirmed because of the defendant’s long delay in asserting his speedy trial right and his failure to show any prejudice
• testimony of witness regarding tumultuous relationship between defendant and victim not hearsay where it was “based purely upon his observation of the couple”
• \[E]vidence that merely casts a bare suspicion on another or raises a conjectural inference as to the commission of the crime by another is not admissible.\ (citation and punctuation omitted)
• defendant may be entitled to post-conviction DNA testing if he meets all of the statutory requirements listed in OCGA § 5-5-41 (c) (3), (4), and (7)
• “[E]vidence that merely casts a bare suspicion on another or raises a conjectural inference as to the commission of the crime by another is not admissible.” (citation and punctuation omitted)
• “[E]vidence that merely casts a bare suspicion on another or raises a conjectural inference as to the commission of the crime by another is not admissible.” (citation and punctuation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).