Irene_Adler
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2011
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi there, SuperSleuth. If I'm not mistaken, Judge Self is the Superior Court judge in Macon. As I said before, criminal law is not my forte. But I do remember Stephen's burglary case being transferred to Superior Court following the addition of his second burglary charge, and I believe Judge Self was the Superior Court judge who heard his conflict hearing. I think you could be right, though, in implying the Magistrate Uniform Rules wouldn't apply to this hearing, but rather the Superior Court Uniform Rules would seem applicable. Either way, it looks like the same rules would be applicable, as a commitment hearing (whether conducted by a magistrate or superior court) is conducted by a court of inquiry (i.e. investigating accusations), rather than a court of adjudication. I managed to find the Superior Court Uniform Rule 26.2 (page 69 of the link), and it seems to be, at first glance, identical.
Also of interest, are the rules (which SS pointed out in the Probate Rules) pertaining to electronic and photographic coverage of judicial proceedings (page 41 of the same link). The Rule states that it's governed by O.C.G.A. § 15-1-10.1, which reads:
15-1-10.1. Standards in determining grant of requests for televising, videotaping, or motion picture filming of judicial proceedings
(a) It is declared to be the purpose and intent of the General Assembly that certain standards be considered by the courts in determining whether to grant requests for the televising, videotaping, or motion picture filming of judicial proceedings. Such standards are intended to provide an evaluation of the impact on the public interest and the rights of the parties in open judicial proceedings, the impact upon the integrity and dignity of the court, and whether the proposed activity would contribute to the enhancement of or detract from the ends of justice.
(b) In considering a request for the televising, videotaping, or motion picture filming of judicial proceedings, the court shall consider the following factors in determining whether to grant such request:
(1) The nature of the particular proceeding at issue;
(2) The consent or objection of the parties or witnesses whose testimony will be presented in the proceedings;
(3) Whether the proposed coverage will promote increased public access to the courts and openness of judicial proceedings;
(4) The impact upon the integrity and dignity of the court;
(5) The impact upon the administration of the court;
(6) The impact upon due process and the truth finding function of the judicial proceeding;
(7) Whether the proposed coverage would contribute to the enhancement of or detract from the ends of justice;
(8) Any special circumstances of the parties, victims, witnesses, or other participants such as the need to protect children or factors involving the safety of participants in the judicial proceeding; and
(9) Any other factors which the court may determine to be important under the circumstances of the case.
(c) The court may hear from the parties, witnesses, or other interested persons and from the person or entity requesting coverage during the court's consideration of the factors set forth in this Code section.
(d) This Code section shall not apply to the use of electronic or photographic means for the presentation of evidence or the perpetuation of a record.
(e) The court in its discretion may grant requests made under this Code section for all or portions of judicial proceedings.
Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Georgia may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.
http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-15/chapter-1/15-1-10-1/
http://www.georgiacourts.org/files/UNIFORM%20SUPERIOR%20COURT%20RULES_Updated_11_10.pdf
ETA: Sorry, SS. I just noticed that you did include a snippet of the Superior Court Rule pertaining to commitment hearings, as well. But I do think I was able to add something new with the rule and statute pertaining to superior court media coverage.
