Long Record Attorney

the Superior Court has exclusive jurisdiction to review a 13 to 17 who have accused one of the following offenses are:
(1) Murder;
(2) murder;
(3) Rape;
(4) Aggravated sodomy;
(5) severe child abuse;
(6) Battery serious sexual or
(7) flights armed, if they have committed with a firearm.

OCGA § 15-11-28 (b) (2) (A).
Because a child accused of committing the above offenses should be tried as an adult, is an early consultation with an attorney is crucial. There are several ways to reduce the cost and the case to juvenile court where the child will be treated fairly. A lawyer is working closely with the judge and the prosecutor to refer a case.

There are more studies and research in the psychology of children and adolescents and minds as a charging and sentencing in adult court can not fairly or effectively deal with crime . The Department of Justice has compiled these studies conclude that children are not likely to deter the threat of prosecution and recidivism of adults is actually worse for children exposed to adult court and prison. See Juvenile Justice Bulletin, OJJDP, August 2008, see www.ojp.usdoj.gov. Such research and teaching can be useful in negotiations with the district attorney about your case.

If a lawyer does not receive a transfer is the prosecutor or judge, it is almost impossible to call the question. In Martin v. State, 256 Georgia App. 527 (2002), said the Court of Appeal that the judge is not obliged to refer a case or to check whether the transfer.

It is also important to fight against the transfer to the Superior Court. The juvenile court may transfer a case to be considered by the court, if there is reason to believe that the child’s delinquent act committed alleged that the child is not mentally retarded or mentally ill, that the interests of the child and the community require the transfer to and the child is at least 15 years old when the alleged criminal conduct. O.C.G.A. § / Search> School & Queries

children increasingly being searched and questioned while in school. These actions by the police and school to school, often not only punishment but also the costs of the juvenile court or adult charges in Superior Court. Due to the growing challenge is the control and supervision of the searches and interrogations that take place in schools is of crucial importance for the criminal defense of a child. In these circumstances, is a movement, a child from school statements or evidence that suppress found by a search are often the first line

In the interest of the TAG, 292 Georgia App . 48 (2008)

T.A.G. was involved in an armed robbery of two boys at school and a deputy head teacher took him into his office to ask him questions. T.A.G. approved, the money of one of the children but not others. In a second interview, T.A.G. approved, the money from the second child as well.

officer school resource (police officer assigned to the school) was present at the second hearing. The agent not to ask questions and was there for “security purposes”. The most important issue for students and asked the officer if the student could be charged with a crime, the officer replied that he could be charged with robbery.

The court refused to conclude the first statement, that to remove it without police involvement. The court granted the motion of the second statement because a police officer was involved. The court found that trying to police, the Miranda rights of students by school authorities to demolish all the questions, but then with the states as evidence against the child itself.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court on appeal c. State, 234,488 in Georgia (1975). In Young, the Georgia Supreme Court held that there are three types of people are (1) individuals, (2) state officials whose behavior is a measure of state, and (3) police The subject of the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule.

school officials asked that the two types of people. When they violate the Fourth Amendment, they are subject to a civil action for damages, but do not result in violation of the exclusion of evidence. When school officials to participate in the police, however, apply to both Miranda and the Fourth Amendment.

State against KLM, 278 Georgia App. 219 (2006)

A student heard that KLM has ordered the drug during school time to sell, and tells the principal. The largest so-called public safety officer for help. When asked, K. refuses to speak. The director said, “Dig!” And the officer found marijuana and searched K.

The court granted the motion to suppress K, and confirmed by the Court of Appeal. An official the school could have obtained in the research, but the officer did not. The fact that the agent acted at the request of the customer not excuse him from the obligation he has probably lead to seek a section that need.

It is imperative to fight the evidence and charges against children who are in a precarious position, abused by the system. A lawyer familiar with the possible ways is to paramount importance to achieve a desired result.