Did You Miss This Brutal Exchange Before the Georgia Supreme Court?

Most of this story is what the late Justice Antonin Scalia called a lawyer’s work. That’s why he opposed cameras during oral arguments before the Supreme Court—there’s nothing to hide. For the most part, these decisions are not controversial, even the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed, and most of what is discussed is beyond boring. Again, it’s the lawyer’s work. 

At the state level, there is some video access, but the situation hasn’t changed. Most of this information won’t hold voters' attention unless there’s a clear mistake that everyone can understand. Everyone knows to be prepared and not cite things that don’t exist, right? Well, at CNN, the standards are different. In Georgia, one of its attorneys, trying to end an appeal petition for a previously convicted murderer, was called out by a Georgia Supreme Court judge for citing statutes that do not exist, and it was all caught on video 

 The Supreme Court of Georgia heard arguments Wednesday in the appeal of Hannah Payne, the woman convicted in the 2019 shooting death of Kenneth Herring after prosecutors said she chased him down following a traffic crash in Clayton County. 

Payne was found guilty in 2023 of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault and other charges in Herring’s death. She was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, plus additional consecutive years. Prosecutors said Payne followed the 62-year-old after he left the scene of a crash, cut off his truck and then shot him after a confrontation.  

At trial, the state argued Payne was "playing cop" by going after a driver she was not directly involved with. Payne testified she believed Herring was impaired, stayed on the phone with 911 and was trying to help when the encounter turned violent. She claimed Herring grabbed her and that the gun went off during a struggle. 

On appeal, Payne argues her trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to request jury instructions on citizen’s arrest and defense of others. 

[…] 

Arguing for the state, Deborah Leslie urged the court to uphold Payne’s conviction and the denial of her motion for a new trial. Leslie said the evidence did not support either omitted jury instruction and told the justices, "The evidence showed that Ms. Payne was the aggressor. She used unreasonable force and fatally shot an unarmed, non-threatening motorist, Mr. Herring, after ignoring 911 directives." Leslie argued there was no lawful detention to support a citizen’s arrest instruction and no evidence of "an imminent threat of unlawful force against a third party" to support defense of others. 

The court also appeared focused on whether Payne’s lawyer made a reasonable strategic choice at trial by pursuing self-defense and accident rather than risking what the state said would amount to conceding false imprisonment. At times, the justices sounded skeptical about that argument and questioned how the court could find no prejudice if it concluded the missing instructions should have been requested. 

The hearing ended with an unexpected dispute over the trial court’s order denying Payne’s motion for new trial. One justice said the order contained "at least five citations to cases that don't exist" along with other citations and quotations that did not appear to support the points for which they were used. Leslie said, "No, Your Honor, I do not believe so, they were not," when asked whether those citations appeared in the version she submitted, adding, "I did prepare an order, that order was revised." The court said it would issue a briefing order directing the state on what needed to be supplemented. 

Comment below, but yikes. She submitted fake documents. There are allegations that AI was used. Also, there was no revised order, nor was one ordered by Leslie’s boss, Clayton County District Attorney Tasha Mosley. The DA’s office has until April 2 to explain how fake files were submitted to the state’s high court.