Fogarty v. State
Georgia Supreme Court
513 S.E.2d 493 (1999)
- Written by Casey Cohen, JD
Facts
Mark Fogarty (defendant) was arrested and charged by the State of Georgia with kidnapping, aggravated assault, battery, and stalking. Without Fogarty’s knowledge, Fogarty’s wife entered into an agreement to pay Fogarty’s counsel a $25,000 advanced fee. Fogarty’s wife and counsel also agreed that if the charges against Fogarty were dismissed and a different suspect identified, the fee would be reduced to $10,000. Fogarty’s charges were not dismissed. The jury acquitted Fogarty of some counts but found him guilty on others. Fogarty appealed his conviction and argued that the fee arrangement between his wife and counsel created a conflict of interest for his counsel, which adversely affected his counsel’s performance. Specifically, Fogarty argued that his counsel would receive more money if the case were not dismissed, and therefore, his counsel had no incentive to have the case dismissed. The appeals court affirmed Fogarty’s conviction. The appeals court concluded that, although the arrangement between Fogarty’s counsel and Fogarty’s wife was an improper contingency-fee arrangement, Fogarty did not prove that the fee arrangement affected his counsel’s performance. Fogarty appealed, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Carley, J.)
Concurrence (Sears, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
