Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Criminal Procedure topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Judge grants immunity to Randall Callaway Jr. after self‑defense testimony

State Court of Clayton County, Georgia · July 16, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

In State Court in Clayton County, Judge Tammy Long Hayward granted an immunity motion for Randall Ramon Callaway Jr. after Callaway testified he was struck with a wooden board and that his actions were defensive; the judge concluded the defense met the preponderance standard and dismissed the prosecution on those counts.

Judge Tammy Long Hayward granted an immunity motion for Randall Ramon Callaway Jr. (2023CR03074) after hearing testimony and argument in Courtroom 304 on the criminal motions calendar.

Callaway waived his Fifth Amendment right and testified that on Aug. 1, 2021, he returned home to find April Lemon intoxicated and that she struck him in the back of the head with a wooden board, causing bleeding. Under questioning from defense counsel Mister Lynch, Callaway said he pushed Lemon to get away because she still held the board and he feared further injury. Lynch told the court that Callaway’s account showed defensive, non‑deadly conduct and argued the defense had satisfied the preponderance standard for immunity.

Assistant Solicitor General Monique Adams, representing the state, had no further contest to the form of the proceedings after testimony was presented. After hearing argument, Judge Hayward said the court would grant the motion for immunity, stating the defendant’s uncontroverted testimony met the burden required at the immunity hearing. The judge ordered an immunity order prepared by defense counsel and reminded the parties that, insofar as any parenting or custody issues remain, those should be addressed in superior court.

The ruling resolves the counts addressed in the immunity hearing by removing criminal liability on the basis of the defensive conduct found at the motion hearing. The judge advised the parties on next procedural steps and excused those present.