Committee advances substitute for House Bill 1255 to set discovery timelines, shifts notice duty

The committee approved a substituted version of House Bill 1255 (LC 590410 S) after testimony from defense lawyers and county prosecutors about how discovery is produced and tracked.

Ashley Merchant, a criminal defense attorney and past president of the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told the committee most discovery "originates electronically" and that printing or forcing in‑person copying imposes needless cost and delay. "Forcing us to come and copy it under the open file policy . . . is a printing cost," Merchant said, adding that late or unavailable discovery contributes to continuances, longer pretrial detention and a growing backlog in state courts.

The substitute clarifies several processes: it gives courts discretion to limit defense motions tied to discovery served within 30 days of trial, moves discovery timelines to 30‑day increments, revises expert‑witness disclosure requirements to make exclusion discretionary with judges, and refines service rules to distinguish child advocacy centers from law enforcement agencies. The presenter noted some language was negotiated with prosecutors and judges and that OCGA cross‑references were added.

Ben Sessions, a defense practitioner introduced to the committee, said untethering motion deadlines from arraignment dates would let defense counsel file more particularized motions when discovery is timely produced. "If you had the discovery, you would know immediately if you had a good face to file any motion," he said, arguing the substitute would reduce wasted appellate time and unnecessary hearings.

County and local prosecutors told the panel that resources vary widely across Georgia circuits. Randy McGinley said some circuits invest heavily in digital platforms (he cited multi‑hundred‑thousand‑dollar annual costs for systems such as Axon), while smaller counties lack those resources and could face burdens if statewide mandates are imposed without funding. He urged clarity on protective orders for sensitive materials, saying forensic interviews need safeguards to prevent inappropriate dissemination.

Representative Hong moved an amendment to substitute language in section 1 to shift responsibility for sending certain charging‑document notices from the clerk of court to the state/prosecutor; staff and members discussed drafting details and a second was recorded. Representative Fincher voiced concern about the pace of changes and urged study or delay, warning the bill risks creating an unfunded mandate for prosecutors statewide.

The committee voted in favor of the Smith amendment and then to pass House Bill 1255 as amended; the transcript records the chair declaring "the ayes have it." The record in the transcript does not include a roll‑call tally or a recorded floor referral. No new procedural steps were recorded in the transcript excerpt.