Lee because of his future dangerousness, as evidenced by threatening statements he had made to police, Dr. Grant explained that adult ADHD sufferers commonly engage in lying or boasting to “project an image of toughness or bravado,” and he opined that Lee did so in order to mask his fears of abandonment and rejection. He also testified that Lee did not seem mean, malicious, or aggressive and that, while Lee’s ADHD did not excuse his crimes, it was “a major part of his personality.” b. The mitigating evidence presented in the habeas proceeding. In reviewing the affidavit testimony that Lee presented in the habeas proceeding, we note that much of it consists of hearsay and speculation that would not have been admissible at trial. See Smith v. State, 270 Ga. 240 (12) (510 SE2d 1) (1998) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by O’Kelley v.
holding that because the rules of evidence including the rule against hearsay do not apply to sentencing hearings the district court did not err in relying on hearsay in ordering restitution holding exculpatory statements by a third party should have been admitted in the punishment phase notwithstanding the hearsay rule holding that a violation of the hearsay rule was harmless holding that the hearsay rule is not suspended in the sentencing phase holding that a suspended lawyer remains subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the court for acts committed while suspended