Marietta Criminal Defense Attorney

The Cobb County Lawyer Who Fights For You

If you’ve been charged with a crime, you are standing at a crossroads. If you receive a criminal conviction you will face years of prison time, large fines and a permanent criminal record. Don’t walk this path alone- let an experienced criminal defense attorney protect your freedom and your rights! When you choose the Law Office of Lloyd J. Matthews, you can be confident that you have made the right choice. We have extensive legal experience and an exceptional track record of success. We have successfully defended thousands of clients for over 35 years and we have a proven track record of success covering all manner of criminal defense cases including everything from violent offenses to sex crimes, DUIs, weapons charges, theft offenses, and drug crimes.

Our Philosophy

We put our clients first and offer 24/7 assistance. In order to effectively defeat the case of the State we will immediately consider all the facts and details surrounding your case. We thoroughly review all evidence, consider all the potential outcomes, and, only then, advise our clients how best to proceed. We are not scared of trial and would never push a client to close a case unless it is in the client’s best interest to do so. We are very passionate about defending people’s rights, which is why our clients will never be bullied into an unfair resolution. If you have been charged with a crime and your freedom is at stake, you will need the very best criminal defense available at your side. You are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your Rights, Your Freedom

As you look to protect your liberty and your future, the most important right you have is the right to be represented by a lawyer. It is our mission to ensure that no innocent person is convicted of a criminal offense. If you or someone you know has received criminal charges, time is of the essence-call us at (404) 642-7350 immediately so we can begin assisting you today!

Serving Marietta, Kennesaw, Sandy Plains, Smyrna, & Fair Oaks

Speaking of the 5th amendment and the federal constitutional law that says that the person cannot be compelled to be a witness against him- or herself. We can see that the Georgia case law takes that principle seriously. Perhaps the most recent illustration of the seriousness with which the Georgia Supreme Court approaches this issue is the Elliott case that appeared in the context of DUI law and the refusal of the accused ( the driver) to submit to a breath test. In another post I pointed out that the Elliott case issued from the Ga. Supreme Court on Feb. 18, 2019, and initially carried the case # S18A1204 (prior to being assigned its Georgia Reports case number). It was held there that the statutes which allowed the refusal of the breath case to be used against the defendant were unconstitutional to the extent that they were a form of compelled self-incrimination. There were cases prior to Elliott, of course, which gave evidence that Georgia elevates this principle, protecting the accused from being compelled to incriminate himself, to the highest echelon of importance and sanctity almost. Way back in 1979 we had the Georgia Court of Appeals explaining that it was constitutionally impermissible to force a defendant to produce a handwriting exemplar for authorities to use, since that is forcing him to do an act, as distinct from forcing him to “submit” to an act (we had that verbiage from State v. Armstead at 152 Ga. App. 56,57 (1979)).

Note that this idea is embraced by the Georgia courts even though the U.S. Supreme Court had held that handwriting exemplars can be compelled without violating the 5th amendment. Why might this be? Because ” Georgia has long granted more protection to its citizens than has the U.S. and while the States cannot less protection, they can grant more”. I implied in a previous remark I made, one will not find this much vaunted “greater solicitude” for our Georgia citizens across the board- one must look at the specific right involved and compare how “the feds” treat that right, versus how the Georgia Courts are treating it.

In other places I have talked about the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable searches, and above there is some discussion about the 5th amendment, and the Georgia Constitutional, protection against being compelled to give testimony tending in any manner to be self-incriminating. In Georgia this is not limited to strictly testimonial evidence- the State is precluded from forcing an accused to “cough up” both oral evidence and real evidence (cannot be forced to present such evidence).

Now it is finally time to talk about the 6th amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the comparable Georgia constitutional law, which can of course be found at Article I, Section I, Paragraph XIV. This is where we are getting to the right to counsel, the “privilege and benefit of counsel”. And of course, the way the “right” has evolved, the right to counsel means also the right to the effective representation of counsel. It has been extended as well to people without means, people that perhaps we could refer to as “impoverished” or quite simply, poor people who stand accused of some criminal offense.

This 6th amendment right to counsel applies to every state in our Union by virtue of the due process clause of the 14th amendment. From the very first moment that the arrest or adversary proceedings against the accused are begun, from that moment on the accused has the right to counsel. Like any right however, to be meaningful, to have any traction at all the right must be asserted, it must be insisted upon. If you are wishy washy about “perhaps” or “maybe” you should consult with a lawyer, you are placing yourself at a grave disadvantage in the context of police-citizen questioning: you are not boldly enough and clearly enough stating that you do not want to answer questions and instead you want a lawyer NOW. It’s not like on TV where the police are fawning all over you, asking you whether you want a lawyer- they’re there to get answers from you, to get information, and if that information results in you being charged, then c’est la vie.

And the right to counsel stays with you throughout all the critical stages of the proceedings, (such as the arraignment , pretrial motions, and the often overlooked and underestimated preliminary hearing which you sometimes hear referred to as a “probable cause” hearing). But like most things in life, the right can be “waived”, it can be given up, albeit there is still the question whether you are knowingly and intelligently giving it up. Any purported waiver must be knowing and voluntary and intelligent. If you waive the right based on misinformation that is fed to you by the police, then you may be able to challenge that in court. If the police insist on questioning you while you are sky high on drugs, then you may be able to challenge the voluntariness of your alleged “waiver” of your right to remain silent, and your right to the benefit of counsel at all critical stages. Each case is narrowly specific to the facts of that case, and minor differences from one case to another can result in a different outcome in court.

And now we come to an uncomfortable but realistic thing that ought to be discussed. We are still in general considering the benefit of counsel that is sometimes called the right to the effective assistance of counsel, which some lawyers will breezily refer to as “IAC” [the IN-effective assistance of counsel, which can sometimes be asserted as a ground to appeal a criminal conviction]. And what is this “uncomfortable thing”? It has to do with the “fact”, if you will, that you do not have the right to “perfect” counsel or a “perfectly fair” trial. It has to do with the “principle”, if you will, that courts in Georgia, and all across our great country, place a high premium, a high value on finality which you sometimes see referred to as “judicial finality”. I call it the “done deal” philosophy. Once the jury renders their verdict it’s a done deal. True, there is the theoretical right to appeal. True, there is post DNA testing (sometimes), and true there is something called a “motion for new trial”. But with all that said, there is a near sovereign value placed on the finality and conclusiveness of the judgment the jury has rendered. And the appellate courts will treat the jury’s decision with great deference, as a rule. And because of that emphasis on finality, many many errors will fall into the category of “harmless error”. The Courts do not assert it was not error- what they say is that the error is unlikely to have affected the verdict to the extent of, if the error had not happened, the jury’s verdict would have been different than what it was.

Call our office today if you need criminal defense in Marietta! We also serve Kennesaw, Sandy Plains, Smyrna, and Fair Oaks!