Introduction
One of the main principles of all judicial procedures legal implementation is respect for human rights. Their violation, both in the course of trials and before the commencement of hearings and charges, is fraught with the appeal of any decisions in the judicial institutions of higher instances. In order to determine which boards are responsible for the consideration of appellate cases of defendants’ personal rights violation, it is possible to consider the judicial branch of the state of Georgia.
Local control over the execution of proper procedures can be an example of how the system of defendant protection is organized. The key subjects of these proceedings are those who intend to appeal against the decisions of the first instance courts because of doubts about the legitimacy of specific procedures conducted. The analysis of the branch of courts in Georgia may provide a comprehensive picture of the state jurisdiction system and the powers with which all of the boards represented are vested.
Violation of Rights as a Basis for an Appeal
To participate in the proceedings in a criminal case, persons are involved in respect of which the board conducting a certain process issues a specific decision. Despite the severity of a crime, a proper procedure is to be followed. Participants in the proceedings should be explained their rights and obligations under the criminal procedure law. Otherwise, defendants have an opportunity to appeal against any of the decisions taken, referring to their illegal consideration because of the violation of the due process rights. The relevant judicial boards are obliged to accept such an appeal in order to render a verdict on its legality and to confirm or refute the alleged violations.
Trial Appeal in Georgia
In addition to the basic legislation of the state, there are other authorities that consider controversial court cases. According to Janflone ​​and Williford (2016), if the defendant intends to file a complaint regarding the violation of legal rights, he or she applies to the Georgia Court of Appeals. This procedure is aimed at identifying the causes of unlawful treatment in relation to the accused and further proceedings. As Hill and Hill (2018) note, the Georgia Court of Appeals can satisfy the defendant’s petition if evident mistakes are made in the process of detention. At the same time, both structures work independently of each other, and even in case the trial continues in the first instance, the Georgia Court of Appeals acts separately and independently. This procedure allows speeding up the process of proceedings and maintaining unbiased opinions concerning particular cases.
Appeals from a Federal Trial Court
In Georgia, a controversial proceeding from a federal court may be transferred to the State Supreme Court, which is the highest authority, and its decisions are indisputable. Hill and Hill (2018) cite the local Bill of Rights and argue that “the Georgia Supreme Court could interpret the state Constitution more expansively than the federal Constitution in several areas” (p. 37). In other words, the higher instance is more competent in matters of legislation and is able to assess specific cases of defendants in detail, taking into account many legal documents.
If a certain decision cannot be made at the state level, a request to the Supreme Court is sent, and the representatives of the relevant commission work thoroughly and investigate the nuances of a particular case. This approach allows achieving justice regarding all appeals and maintaining the high quality of the judicial system.
Intermediate Court of Appeals
In the context of a single territorial unit, in this case, the state of Georgia, there are intermediate instances. According to Hill and Hill (2018), “the Court of Appeals is an intermediate appellate court, limited to correcting errors of law committed in the lower courts” (p. 168). This principle of the whole system organization allows ensuring the independence of decisions made and achieving the competent consideration of cases at different stages.
Court of Last Resort
The division of the judicial branch into separate instances makes it possible to separate duties and provide a comprehensive assessment of proceedings. In Georgia, as Janflone and Williford (2016) remark, the Court of Appeals is the initial stage. However, there is a last resort that is the most authoritative. It is the Supreme Court, and its decisions are fundamental in the process of working on complex and ambiguous cases. This board has original jurisdiction over criminal actions considered during trials. In particular, according to Janflone and Williford (2016), if needed, it “alters the jurisdiction of Georgia’s appellate courts” (p. 210). Therefore, its official decisions and arguments are authoritative and indisputable.
Conclusion
The assessment of the Georgian judiciary provides an opportunity to evaluate the objectivity of the decisions made regarding criminal cases and the violations of human rights in the state. Appeals are dealt with in different instances, and the Court of Appeals is an intermediate authority. The Supreme Court is the highest branch of the entire system, and the decisions that are made here are indisputable due to their status.
References
Hill, M. B., & Hill, G. L. W. (2018). The Georgia State Constitution (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Janflone, B., & Williford, M. F. (2016). HB 927 – Supreme Court, appellate court efficiencies. Georgia State University Law Review, 33(1), 205-215.