Notable Results

Mark represented John McNeil, a Cobb County businessman serving a life sentence for murder in a case that drew national attention and the support of the NAACP. Challenging the conviction on the ground that McNeil had received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, Mark secured a grant of habeas corpus relief that vacated the conviction. The Georgia Attorney General appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court of Georgia, and McNeil was ultimately released from prison in 2013 after more than six years of incarceration.

This appeal challenged the constitutionality of Georgia's hate crimes penalty statute. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that the law was unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clauses of both the Georgia and United States Constitutions. Because its broad and unqualified language failed to give ordinary citizens fair notice of what conduct was prohibited, it impermissibly risked arbitrary and subjective enforcement.

Representing the appellant, Mark challenged the constitutionality of a Georgia law requiring individuals classified as "sexually dangerous predators" to wear — and pay for — a GPS tracking device for the rest of their lives, even after they had completed their criminal sentences. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed, striking down the statute and holding that lifetime warrantless GPS monitoring after sentence completion was an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The decision ended GPS tracking for hundreds of Georgians and prompted the General Assembly to revisit the statute.

Mark represented a group of registered sex offenders challenging Butts County Sheriff Gary Long's practice of placing "no trick-or-treat" warning signs in their yards without consent. The Eleventh Circuit reversed a lower court ruling and held that the sheriff violated the First Amendment, finding that forcing residents to display the signs on their own property amounted to unconstitutionally compelled speech. The court directed that a permanent injunction be entered for the plaintiff who owned his home; claims by two other plaintiffs who lived in family-owned homes were remanded for further proceedings.