When Restriction Becomes a Felony
False imprisonment charges often arise from heated personal disputes, workplace conflicts, domestic arguments, or misguided attempts at control. Many people are stunned to learn that no jail cell, no handcuffs, and no physical restraint are required for a felony charge to apply.
In Georgia, simply preventing another person from freely leaving—without legal authority—can expose you to prison time, a felony conviction, and lifelong consequences.
This guide explains false imprisonment under Georgia law, how prosecutors build these cases, common defenses, and the most devastating mistakes people make after an accusation.
What Is False Imprisonment Under Georgia Law?
False imprisonment is governed by O.C.G.A. § 16-5-41.
Under Georgia law, a person commits false imprisonment when they:
A person commits the offense of false imprisonment when, in violation of the personal liberty of another, he arrests, confines, or detains such person without legal authority.
Key point: No movement is required. That is what distinguishes false imprisonment from kidnapping.
What False Imprisonment Is Not
False imprisonment does not require:
- Physical injury
- Handcuffs or restraints
- A locked door
- Prolonged confinement
- Movement from one location to another
This is where many defendants—and inexperienced lawyers—miscalculate.
False Imprisonment vs. Kidnapping in Georgia
False Imprisonment | Kidnapping |
No movement required | Asportation (movement) required |
Often arises from brief confinement | Often involves relocation |
Serious felony | Serious felony |
1–10 years imprisonment | 10–20 years or more |
Prosecutors frequently overcharge false imprisonment cases as kidnapping, which makes early legal intervention critical.
Is False Imprisonment a Felony in Georgia?
Yes. False imprisonment is a felony.
Penalties Include:
- 1 to 10 years in prison
- Felony criminal record
- Loss of firearm rights
- Immigration consequences for non-citizens
- Career-ending background check issues
Common False Imprisonment Scenarios
False imprisonment charges often arise from:
- Domestic disputes
- Locking someone in a room or car
- Blocking an exit during an argument
- Workplace confrontations
- Parent-child discipline misunderstandings
- Security or retail detentions gone wrong
- “You’re not leaving until we talk” situations
Intent is often misunderstood—and aggressively disputed.
50 Costly Mistakes to Avoid After a False Imprisonment Accusation
1. Talking to police without a lawyer
2. Assuming “it wasn’t that serious”
3. Believing consent doesn’t matter
4. Apologizing via text
5. Deleting messages
6. Posting on social media
7. Contacting the accuser
8. Violating a no-contact order
9. Underestimating felony exposure
10. Waiting to hire counsel
11. Trusting investigators
12. Explaining instead of remaining silent
13. Ignoring surveillance footage
14. Failing to preserve evidence
15. Assuming charges will be dropped
16. Talking to coworkers
17. Talking to family who may testify
18. Minimizing the accusation
19. Accepting the first plea offer
20. Overlooking collateral consequences
21. Ignoring immigration risks
22. Forgetting child custody implications
23. Assuming intent is obvious
24. Believing duration determines guilt
25. Failing to challenge credibility
26. Ignoring constitutional defenses
27. Allowing police to search devices
28. Missing court dates
29. Violating bond conditions
30. Waiting until indictment
31. Hiring non-trial counsel
32. Ignoring jury perception
33. Over-explaining your actions
34. Forgetting consent evidence
35. Assuming self-defense doesn’t apply
36. Letting emotions drive decisions
37. Underestimating prosecutor aggression
38. Treating false imprisonment as “minor”
39. Failing to prepare mitigation
40. Assuming dismissal is automatic
41. Not challenging overcharging
42. Ignoring lesser-included offenses
43. Waiting to assert defenses
44. Failing to subpoena witnesses
45. Assuming a bench trial is safer
46. Ignoring jury instructions
47. Overlooking motion practice
48. Accepting guilt prematurely
49. Trusting “this happens all the time”
50. Not hiring a Georgia criminal defense lawyer immediately
100 Essential FAQs About False Imprisonment in Georgia
1. What exactly is false imprisonment under Georgia law?
False imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally arrests, confines, or detains another person without legal authority and in violation of that person’s liberty. It is the unlawful restriction of freedom, not the method used, that defines the crime.
2. Is false imprisonment a felony in Georgia?
Yes. False imprisonment is a felony punishable by 1 to 10 years in prison, regardless of whether physical force was used.
3. Does false imprisonment require physical restraint?
No. Physical restraint is not required. Psychological pressure, intimidation, or blocking exits can be enough.
4. Is locking a door necessary to prove false imprisonment?
No. A locked door is not required. Standing in a doorway or otherwise preventing exit may suffice.
5. Does the alleged victim have to attempt to leave?
No. The test is whether a reasonable person would believe they were free to leave—not whether they tried.
6. Can false imprisonment happen during an argument?
Yes. Many cases arise from domestic or interpersonal disputes that escalate emotionally.
7. How is false imprisonment different from kidnapping?
Kidnapping requires movement (asportation). False imprisonment does not.
8. Can false imprisonment occur in seconds?
Yes. Duration is not an element of the offense.
9. Is intent required for false imprisonment?
Yes. The act must be intentional, but intent is often inferred from conduct rather than admissions.
10. Can false imprisonment be accidental?
Accidental confinement generally does not meet the intent requirement, but prosecutors may argue otherwise.
11. Can blocking a hallway or doorway be false imprisonment?
Yes, if it reasonably prevents a person from leaving.
12. Does yelling or threatening language matter?
Yes. Threats can create psychological confinement even without physical restraint.
13. Can false imprisonment occur in a car?
Yes. Preventing a passenger from exiting a vehicle can qualify.
14. Does false imprisonment require fear?
Fear is not required, but reasonable fear strengthens the prosecution’s case.
15. Can spouses be charged with false imprisonment?
Yes. Marriage does not confer legal authority to restrain someone.
16. Can parents be charged with false imprisonment?
Yes, although lawful parental discipline may provide a defense depending on facts.
17. Can employers be charged for workplace detentions?
Yes. Employers who exceed lawful authority risk criminal charges.
18. What is shopkeeper’s privilege?
Georgia law allows limited detention for suspected shoplifting, but strict conditions apply.
19. What happens if shopkeeper’s privilege is exceeded?
Exceeding scope or duration can convert lawful detention into false imprisonment.
20. Is false imprisonment a “violent” crime?
It is classified as a crime against the person, even without violence.
21. Can false imprisonment be charged without an arrest at the scene?
Yes. Charges may be filed after investigation.
22. Can police charge false imprisonment based solely on a statement?
Yes, though corroboration becomes a key defense issue.
23. Can text messages be used as evidence?
Yes. Texts often establish intent or contradict defenses.
24. Can surveillance video defeat a false imprisonment charge?
Yes. Video frequently determines outcomes.
25. Does consent defeat a false imprisonment charge?
Yes. Voluntary presence negates confinement.
26. Does consent have to be explicit?
No. Consent can be implied by conduct.
27. What if the person stayed to avoid escalation?
This can undermine claims of unlawful detention.
28. Can false imprisonment occur in public?
Yes. Public visibility does not prevent confinement.
29. Can standing near an exit be enough?
Sometimes. Context and positioning matter.
30. Does the alleged victim’s perception matter?
Yes, but it must be reasonable.
31. Can false imprisonment be charged with assault or battery?
Yes. Prosecutors often stack charges.
32. Can false imprisonment be charged as domestic violence?
Yes, when parties share a qualifying relationship.
33. Does false imprisonment affect child custody cases?
Yes. Family courts treat these charges seriously.
34. Can false imprisonment impact immigration status?
Yes. It can trigger deportation or inadmissibility.
35. Is false imprisonment a crime of moral turpitude?
Often treated as such in immigration and licensing contexts.
36. Can a first offense still lead to prison?
Yes. Prison exposure exists even for first-time offenders.
37. Is probation possible?
Yes, but never guaranteed.
38. Can false imprisonment be reduced to a misdemeanor?
Sometimes, depending on facts and negotiation strategy.
39. Can charges be dismissed before trial?
Yes. Many cases are resolved through motions or negotiations.
40. Can the alleged victim “drop” the charges?
No. Only the State can dismiss charges.
41. How do prosecutors prove confinement?
Through testimony, video, messages, and circumstantial evidence.
42. How do prosecutors prove intent?
Intent is inferred from actions and surrounding circumstances.
43. Can false imprisonment be overcharged as kidnapping?
Yes, frequently.
44. How are kidnapping charges challenged?
By attacking the movement (asportation) element.
45. Does brief movement convert false imprisonment into kidnapping?
Not necessarily. Georgia law requires meaningful movement.
46. Can self-defense justify temporary restraint?
Yes, in limited circumstances.
47. Can defense of others apply?
Yes, if restraint was reasonably necessary.
48. Can citizen’s arrest justify confinement?
Rarely. Georgia’s citizen’s arrest law is extremely narrow.
49. Can mistaken belief of authority be a defense?
It may negate criminal intent.
50. Can inconsistent statements by the accuser help the defense?
Yes. Credibility is central.
51. What role does jury psychology play in these cases?
Jurors are sensitive to power, fear, and control narratives.
52. Why are these cases emotionally charged?
They often arise from intimate or workplace relationships.
53. Can false imprisonment charges be expunged?
Only if the case is dismissed, acquitted, or reduced.
54. Does bond usually include no-contact provisions?
Yes, especially in domestic cases.
55. What happens if bond conditions are violated?
Re-arrest and bond revocation are common.
56. Can jail calls be used as evidence?
Yes. They are recorded and frequently used.
57. Should defendants speak to police?
No, without counsel.
58. Does remaining silent hurt your case?
No. Silence is a constitutional right.
59. Can early legal representation change outcomes?
Dramatically. Early strategy often determines resolution.
60. Why are false imprisonment cases fact-intensive?
Because subtle details determine confinement and intent.
61. Can third-party witnesses defeat the charge?
Yes, especially neutral witnesses.
62. How important is scene reconstruction?
Extremely. Physical layout often determines confinement.
63. Can lack of physical obstruction defeat the charge?
Yes, depending on context.
64. Can tone and body language matter?
Yes. They influence perceived coercion.
65. Can alcohol or emotion excuse conduct?
No, but they may explain context.
66. Can mental state defenses apply?
Rarely, but context matters.
67. Can false imprisonment charges affect employment?
Yes. Employers treat felony charges seriously.
68. Can professional licenses be suspended?
Yes, even before conviction.
69. Can false imprisonment lead to civil lawsuits?
Yes. Criminal cases often precede civil claims.
70. Does apologizing help?
Usually no—it often harms the defense.
71. Can deleting evidence worsen the case?
Yes. It can be construed as consciousness of guilt.
72. Can false imprisonment occur without threats?
Yes. Threats strengthen but are not required.
73. Can body cam footage help the defense?
Yes, especially when police misinterpret events.
74. Can prosecutors rely on circumstantial evidence?
Yes. Most cases involve circumstantial proof.
75. Can false imprisonment occur without confinement in a room?
Yes. Any space can qualify.
76. Does the alleged victim’s size or strength matter?
It may influence reasonableness analysis.
77. Can false imprisonment be charged against multiple defendants?
Yes, under party-to-a-crime theories.
78. Can failure to intervene create liability?
Rarely, but aiding or encouraging can.
79. Can jury instructions decide the case?
Yes. Improper instructions can result in acquittal or appeal.
80. Can appeals succeed in false imprisonment cases?
Yes, especially where legal standards were misapplied.
81. What makes false imprisonment cases winnable?
Early intervention, credibility attacks, and legal precision.
82. Why do prosecutors push these cases hard?
They resonate with juries and involve personal liberty.
83. Why is overcharging common?
To increase leverage for plea negotiations.
84. What role do pretrial motions play?
They often decide the case before trial.
85. Can venue affect outcomes?
Yes. Local jury attitudes matter.
86. Why is narrative control critical?
The first story jurors hear often sticks.
87. Can expert testimony help?
Occasionally, especially regarding perception or fear.
88. Can false imprisonment be negotiated down early?
Yes—with skilled defense counsel.
89. Why is false imprisonment often misunderstood?
Because people assume physical restraint is required.
90. How long do these cases take?
Anywhere from months to over a year.
91. What should someone do immediately after an accusation?
Remain silent and call a criminal defense lawyer.
92. Should you contact the accuser?
No. This often creates additional charges.
93. Can family members be witnesses?
Yes—and often are.
94. Does timing of legal representation matter?
Yes. Early defense is critical.
95. Can false imprisonment charges be resolved without trial?
Yes. Many are dismissed or reduced.
96. What separates strong defenses from weak ones?
Preparation, evidence control, and credibility analysis.
97. Why do judges take these cases seriously?
They involve fundamental liberty interests.
98. Can false imprisonment charges define someone’s future?
Yes—unless handled correctly.
99. Why choose a firm like The Sherman Law Group?
Because these cases require precision, not shortcuts.
100. What is the single most important decision after a false imprisonment accusation?
Choosing elite criminal defense counsel immediately—before the State defines the case.
50 Powerful Defenses to False Imprisonment in Georgia
1. Lack of Intent
False imprisonment requires intentional confinement. Accidental blocking, misunderstanding, or poor communication—without intent to restrain—defeats the charge.
2. Consent
If the alleged victim voluntarily stayed, even briefly, confinement did not occur. Consent may be explicit or implied through conduct.
3. No Actual Confinement
If the person had a reasonable, known, and accessible exit, there was no detention under Georgia law.
4. Implied Freedom of Movement
Where the environment or conduct suggested the person was free to leave, confinement fails—even if emotions were high.
5. Reasonable Alternative Exit
The existence of another reasonable exit, even if less convenient, undermines the confinement element.
6. Absence of Threats or Coercion
Without threats, intimidation, or coercive conduct, prosecutors struggle to prove psychological restraint.
7. Momentary or Incidental Blocking
Brief, incidental blocking during normal movement often does not rise to criminal detention.
8. Mutual Confrontation
If both parties voluntarily engaged and neither attempted to leave, the restraint element weakens.
9. Self-Defense
Temporary restraint to prevent imminent harm can be legally justified under Georgia self-defense law.
10. Defense of Others
Confinement used to protect another person from immediate danger may be lawful.
11. Legal Authority
Certain individuals (police, parents, security) may have limited lawful authority to restrain—if exercised properly.
12. Parental Discipline
Reasonable parental restraint for discipline or safety purposes may negate criminal intent.
13. Shopkeeper’s Privilege
Retailers may briefly detain suspected shoplifters if statutory requirements are strictly followed.
14. Exceeding Shopkeeper’s Privilege (Partial Defense)
Even if privilege was exceeded, overreach may reduce or defeat felony liability.
15. Mistaken Belief of Authority
A good-faith belief in lawful authority can negate criminal intent.
16. False or Exaggerated Allegation
Credibility attacks often expose motive, bias, or exaggeration—especially in domestic cases.
17. Prior Inconsistent Statements
Conflicting versions of events undermine the State’s case and reasonable doubt emerges.
18. Lack of Corroboration
Cases based solely on accusation, without physical or digital evidence, are inherently weak.
19. Surveillance Video Contradiction
Video often disproves alleged confinement narratives.
20. Body Camera Evidence
Police body cams frequently reveal misinterpretations or overstatements.
21. Text Messages and Digital Context
Messages may demonstrate consent, voluntary presence, or lack of intent.
22. Physical Layout Defense
Room size, door placement, visibility, and spacing often defeat confinement claims.
23. No Reasonable Fear
If a reasonable person would not have feared restraint, the liberty element fails.
24. Absence of Power Imbalance
Equal size, strength, or authority undermines claims of coercion.
25. Emotional Exaggeration
Heightened emotions distort perception but do not establish criminal confinement.
26. Overcharging (Kidnapping Reduction)
Many false imprisonment cases are improperly charged as kidnapping and collapse under scrutiny.
27. No Asportation
Failure to prove movement defeats kidnapping and often weakens the entire case.
28. Citizen’s Arrest Defense
Rare but possible if strict statutory conditions are met.
29. Constitutional Violations
Illegal searches, seizures, or interrogations can suppress critical evidence.
30. Miranda Violations
Statements obtained without proper warnings may be excluded.
31. Illegal Phone Search
Warrantless phone searches often violate constitutional protections.
32. Evidence Suppression
Excluding key evidence may dismantle the prosecution’s case entirely.
33. Third-Party Witness Testimony
Neutral witnesses frequently contradict the accuser’s narrative.
34. Lack of Immediate Complaint
Delayed reporting can undermine credibility.
35. Post-Incident Behavior
Friendly or normal conduct after the alleged confinement weakens the claim.
36. Absence of Physical Obstruction
No physical barrier often means no confinement.
37. No Verbal Commands to Stay
Without commands or threats, restraint is harder to prove.
38. Failure to Attempt Escape
While not required, this factor influences jury perception.
39. Intoxication of Accuser
Impaired perception undermines reliability.
40. Prior Relationship Dynamics
History of disputes or manipulation informs credibility.
41. Jury Instruction Errors
Improper instructions can lead to acquittal or reversal on appeal.
42. Insufficient Evidence
Failure to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt requires acquittal.
43. Reasonable Doubt Based on Context
Complex situations often generate doubt juries cannot ignore.
44. Selective Prosecution
Improper charging motives may be challenged in rare cases.
45. Prosecutorial Overreach
Aggressive charging strategies sometimes backfire at trial.
46. Venue-Specific Jury Resistance
Some jurisdictions are skeptical of control-based accusations.
47. Mitigation Leading to Reduction
Strong mitigation may result in charge reduction or dismissal.
48. Diversion Eligibility
Certain cases qualify for pretrial diversion programs.
49. Plea Negotiation Leverage
Weak evidence creates leverage for favorable resolutions.
50. Elite Trial Preparation
Cases prepared for trial—not settlement—are more likely to be dismissed or reduced.
Why These Defenses Work When Executed Correctly
False imprisonment cases are won in the margins—in intent analysis, spatial dynamics, credibility dissection, and constitutional enforcement.
At The Sherman Law Group, defenses are not generic arguments; they are engineered strategies, applied early and relentlessly.
False Imprisonment Is Never “Just a Misunderstanding”
False imprisonment cases are fact-intensive, credibility-driven, and aggressively prosecuted. What feels like a brief argument can quickly become a felony charge with lifelong consequences.
Early legal intervention can mean the difference between dismissal and conviction, probation and prison, a clean record and permanent damage.
If you or someone you love is under investigation or charged with false imprisonment in Georgia, the time to act is now.
Why The Sherman Law Group Is Exceptionally Equipped to Defend False Imprisonment Cases
False imprisonment cases demand intellectual precision, not generic defense tactics.
At The Sherman Law Group, we:
- Deconstruct the State’s theory element-by-element
- Attack intent, consent, and credibility
- Use motion practice aggressively
- Challenge overcharging early
- Prepare every case as if it will be tried
These cases are won in preparation, not desperation.
False Imprisonment Charges Demand Elite Defense
False imprisonment is not a misunderstanding. It is a felony accusation that places your freedom, reputation, and future at risk.
Handled poorly, it becomes a permanent scar.
Handled correctly, it can be neutralized, reduced, or eliminated.
At The Sherman Law Group, we do not dabble in criminal defense. We engineer outcomes. If you are under investigation or charged with false imprisonment in Georgia, the most important decision you will make is who stands between you and the State.
Choose deliberately. Choose early. Choose elite defense.
False Imprisonment Is a Crime of Interpretation, Not Just Action
False imprisonment cases are rarely about what physically happened; they are about how events are interpreted, framed, and understood by police, prosecutors, judges, and juries. The same conduct—standing in a doorway, raising one’s voice, asking someone to stay—can be lawful in one context and felonious in another. This is why these cases demand a defense strategy rooted in nuance, narrative control, and legal precision. At The Sherman Law Group, we focus not only on the conduct alleged, but on how the law actually defines restraint, intent, and liberty.
Prosecutors Often Overcharge to Create Leverage
In Georgia, false imprisonment is frequently charged alongside—or inflated into—kidnapping, aggravated assault, or family violence enhancements. This is rarely accidental. Overcharging gives the State leverage in plea negotiations and frames the defendant as dangerous from the outset. An elite defense attorney recognizes this tactic immediately and attacks it early, forcing the prosecution to justify every element under appellate case law. When overcharging collapses, cases often unravel with it.
Intent Is the Most Vulnerable Element of the State’s Case
The prosecution must prove that the defendant intended to confine another person unlawfully. Intent cannot be assumed simply because an argument occurred or emotions ran high. In many false imprisonment cases, intent is inferred improperly from tone, hindsight, or exaggerated accusations. The Sherman Law Group systematically dismantles intent allegations by isolating actions, separating emotion from purpose, and demonstrating alternative explanations that create reasonable doubt.
Physical Layout and Spatial Reality Matter More Than Police Reports
False imprisonment is deeply connected to space—room size, exit access, visibility, and physical positioning. Police reports often oversimplify or misrepresent these details. A hallway described as “blocked” may, in reality, allow easy passage. A door described as “closed” may never have been locked. Elite defense requires reconstructing the physical environment and confronting the State with objective reality, not narrative shorthand.
Consent Is Often Subtle—but Legally Powerful
Consent does not require spoken permission. It can be inferred from conduct, context, and choices made during the encounter. Many alleged victims remain in a space voluntarily to finish a conversation, avoid escalation, or assert emotional control. Prosecutors often ignore these subtleties. A skilled defense attorney does not. Properly framed, consent alone can defeat the confinement element entirely.
False Imprisonment Cases Are Credibility Wars
Most false imprisonment prosecutions rise or fall on credibility. There is often no physical evidence—only competing versions of events. Motive, bias, prior disputes, emotional instability, and inconsistent statements become decisive. The false imprisonment lawyers at The Sherman Law Group approach these cases as credibility trials from day one, exposing exaggeration, selective memory, and narrative inflation that juries instinctively distrust.
Domestic and Workplace Cases Require Different Defense Lenses
False imprisonment allegations commonly arise in domestic relationships and professional hierarchies. These contexts carry built-in assumptions about power and control that prosecutors exploit. A sophisticated defense distinguishes actual restraint from emotional conflict, workplace authority from criminal confinement, and relationship tension from felony conduct. Context is not an excuse—it is the lens through which legality must be judged.
Constitutional Defenses Are Often Overlooked—and Case-Ending
Illegal searches, warrantless phone seizures, improper interrogations, and Miranda violations are common in false imprisonment investigations, especially when emotions run high and police rush judgment. Suppressing even a single piece of digital or testimonial evidence can dismantle the prosecution’s theory. Elite defense means enforcing constitutional boundaries relentlessly, not treating them as technicalities.
Jury Psychology Cannot Be Ignored
Jurors decide false imprisonment cases less on statutes and more on power, fear, and fairness. They ask: Who had control? Who felt trapped? Who seems reasonable? A defense that ignores these human questions—no matter how legally sound—will struggle. The Sherman Law Group prepares every case with jury psychology in mind, ensuring that facts, law, and human instinct align in the client’s favor.
Jurors Decide These Cases Based on Control, Not Statutes
While jurors receive legal instructions, their decisions often turn on a simpler question: Who had control, and was it abused? Prosecutors frame false imprisonment cases as moral stories about dominance and fear. A sophisticated defense reframes the narrative around choice, context, and mutuality, stripping away the emotional shorthand that leads jurors toward guilt.
Jurors Distrust Exaggeration More Than Silence
Georgia jurors are deeply skeptical of stories that grow larger over time. When an accuser’s account escalates—from “I felt uncomfortable” to “I was trapped”—jurors notice. A disciplined defense exposes exaggeration without attacking the witness personally, allowing jurors to reach their own conclusions about credibility. Silence paired with precision is far more persuasive than outrage.
Physical Reality Anchors Juror Common Sense
Jurors rely heavily on what they can visualize. Floor plans, photographs, measurements, and line-of-sight demonstrations anchor the defense in reality and prevent emotional drift. When jurors can see that a hallway was wide, a door was visible, or an exit was unobstructed, abstract allegations of confinement lose their force.
Jurors Understand Arguments—They Reject Criminalization of Them
Most jurors have been in heated arguments. They instinctively understand that raised voices, emotional tension, and uncomfortable conversations are part of human life—not felonies. Effective defense draws a bright line between conflict and confinement, reminding jurors that the law does not exist to punish emotional exchanges.
Fear Must Be Reasonable, Not Retrospective
Jurors are instructed to evaluate fear objectively, not emotionally. When fear is reconstructed after the fact—based on embarrassment, regret, or external influence—jurors often resist it. A strong defense highlights how hindsight inflates fear and urges jurors to assess what was reasonable in the moment, not after the accusation was made.
Jurors Are Sensitive to Power Narratives—but Demand Proof
Power dynamics matter to jurors, especially in domestic and workplace cases. But jurors also demand evidence that power was actually exercised to restrain freedom. Authority alone is not confinement. Size, title, or relationship status do not automatically equate to control. The defense that dismantles assumed power gains credibility quickly.
Jurors Expect Police to Be Neutral—and Notice When They Aren’t
Georgia jurors respect law enforcement, but they also expect objectivity. When officers accept one narrative without investigation, fail to measure space, ignore video, or make assumptions, jurors notice. A careful, respectful cross-examination that exposes shortcuts can quietly erode the State’s case without antagonizing the jury.
Jurors Pay Attention to What Didn’t Happen
In false imprisonment cases, absence matters. No call for help. No attempt to leave. No immediate complaint. No physical obstruction. Jurors instinctively ask why these things are missing. A strong defense organizes these absences into a coherent pattern that undermines the prosecution’s certainty.
Jurors Do Not Like Felonies That Feel “Manufactured”
When jurors sense that a case was inflated—charged more aggressively than the facts justify—they recoil. Overcharging feels unfair, and fairness matters deeply to juries. Demonstrating how a situation was escalated into a felony narrative invites jurors to act as a corrective force rather than passive observers.
Jurors Reward Defense Teams That Respect Their Intelligence
Jurors respond poorly to theatrics and simplification. They reward lawyers who trust them to think, who present facts cleanly, and who do not overstate. The Sherman Law Group’s trial philosophy reflects this reality: present the law accurately, the facts honestly, and the human story clearly—then allow jurors to do what they came to do: decide fairly.
Why The Sherman Law Group Is Built for False Imprisonment Defense
False imprisonment cases demand precision thinking, strategic restraint, and intellectual discipline. They are not won by bluster or boilerplate defenses. They are won by lawyers who understand how liberty is defined, how narratives are constructed, and how small facts decide big outcomes. At The Sherman Law Group, false imprisonment is not treated as a routine charge—it is treated as a serious allegation requiring elite advocacy from the first phone call to the final verdict.
If you need a false imprisonment lawyer, call us immediately.