Court Opinion

ID: 9610791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:47:31.982507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:07.016017
License: Public Domain

Hall, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in the judgment of affirmance for the reasons stated in Wynn v. State, 127 Ga. App. 463 (194 SE2d 124). "It is important for appellate judges to remember that 'A defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one, for there are no perfect trials.’ Lutwak v. United States, 344 U. S. 604, 619 (73 SC 481, 97 LE 593); Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123, 135 (88 SC 1620, 20 LE2d 476); Brown v. United States, 411 U. S. 223 (36 LE2d 208). The work of a trial judge in a criminal trial is not an easy one. His language in colloquies with counsel, witnesses or jurors should not be judged by the hindsight of appellate judges after weeks of academic deliberation but by the practical difficulties and circumstances faced by the trial judge at the time of the trial.” Sanford v. State, 129 Ga. App. 337 (199 SE2d 560). General criminal procedures are means to social ends and not an end in themselves. To hold otherwise amounts to "mechanical jurisprudence” with the exaltation of form over substance. See Meador, Criminal Appeals, English Practices and American Reforms, pp. 97,107 (1973). We should always remember the cautionary advice of Justice Cardozo that there "is danger that the criminal law will be brought into *819contempt ... if gossamer possibilities of prejudice to a defendant are to nullify a sentence ...” Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 122.