The Augusta Chronicle reports cases are moving through Richmond County Superior Courts much faster than in years gone by. A new system implemented at the direction of the GA Supreme Court has judges working more efficiently and ensuring criminal defendants are getting through the system in a more reasonable amount of time.

Cases that took an average of 494 days to move from indictment to completion in 1997 and only 161 days in 2008. This is a serious improvement on a system that was bogged down and backlogged with cases. The criminal justice system as a whole is overwhelmed with a large number of cases and limited people to move them through.

Richmond County judges used to work on a calendar system that was in rotation. This meant that you might have one judge arraign you, another try you, and yet another sit at your sentencing. Not only did this broken system move slower, there was not continuity in a defendant’s case.

Now, however, one judge follows their cases from beginning to end. They are responsible for their caseload and getting cases through the system in a more efficient manner.

Another telling nugget of information from the Augusta Chronicle’s report is the results of their analysis of the Richmond County cases from last year. It’s no surprise that theft cases represent the majority of indictments. Theft cases run the gamut from shoplifting to car theft.

For a summary of all the theft charges in Richmond County (under Georgia state law), take a look here.  You can also get information on what type of sentence someone will be facing for that charge.

Faster moving cases means people’s faith in the system is higher. When people believe the criminal justice system is working on their behalf, the system actually works better. Because of the crime rate paired with budget restraints, the courts will always seem crowded and busy but making them work efficiently is the challenge that this new calendar system seems to address.

You’ve likely heard about people getting charges dropped on a “technicality”. These “technicalities” are often there to protect the rights of the people. Because we live in a country that presumes innocence until guilt is proven (ideally), these technicalities help ensure little is overlooked and nothing is taken for granted in the criminal justice process.

Recently the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed a Trial Court’s decision to suppress evidence that was seized in a search that may not have been consented to. In most cases, when the police ask to search your property you must give consent for them to do so when there isn’t a warrant present.

In the case of State v. Holloway consent was not clearly given and the State was barred from presenting evidence found in the search. What happened on the date of arrest was two officers were dispatched to a location where drug sales were suspected of taking place. The officers found a man and woman outside and the woman agreed to let the officer’s search her home, where they found nothing.

The officer’s then wanted to search a vehicle parked in the driveway and this is where the consent issue comes into play. The vehicle was owned by the woman but regularly driven by Quantellius Holloway. She, therefore, was the person who had to give consent. The officer’s were only able to say the woman “pretty much” consented to the search of her vehicle where the officers found cocaine.

Mr. Holloway was ultimately charged with drug trafficking. Holloway challenged the evidence by saying he did not consent to the search and the woman’s consent was not voluntary. The Court of Appeals felt that the trial court was correct in suppressing the evidence due to vague testimony by the officer involved.

This is how the system is supposed to work. Officers are trained in court procedures and vague statements don’t go over well as fact when presented to a judge. Saying someone “pretty much” gave up their right to be free from searches is not good enough for consent. A technicality to some is a prime example of the great foundation of our sometimes broken criminal justice system.

An  experienced Georgia defense attorney knows when to challenge evidence submitted by the prosecution and has their clients’ interests in mind at all times.