Skip to main content

Davis v. State

Citations

  • 676 S.E.2d 215
  • 285 Ga. 343
  • 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 1511
  • 2009 Ga. LEXIS 147

How courts have described this case

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

  • letters were not protected by the attorney-client privilege because they did not contain confidential communications
  • letters were not protected by the attorney-client privilege because they did not contain confidential communications
  • prosecutors have wide latitude in conducting closing argument and are authorized to draw inferences and make deductions from the evidence presented
  • letters were not protected by the attorney-client privilege because they did not contain confidential communications
  • prosecutors have wide latitude in conducting closing argument and are authorized to draw inferences and make deductions from the evidence presented
  • “[A]ny purported harm was cured when the trial court instructed the jurors that they could only consider the evidence and law as charged.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Carley, Sears

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

Other cases with this name

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.