FILED

April 3, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

 I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON

SANDRA K. LEWI S a nd hus ba nd, ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9510- CV- 00369

CARLTON LEWI S, )

) BLEDSOE LAW

Pl a i ntif f s - Appe lle e s , )

) HON. J . CURTI S SMI TH,

v. ) J UDGE

)

J ASON M. PENDERGRASS a nd )

R. EUGENE PENDERGRASS, ) REVERSED

) AND

De f e nda nt s - Appe l l a nt s . ) REMANDED

HOWARD L. UPCHURCH, Pi ke ville , for Pl a i ntif f s - Appe lle e s .

LYNNE D. SWAFFORD, SWAFFORD & SWAFFORD, Pi ke vi l l e , f or

De f e nda nt s - Appe l l a nt s .

O P I N I O N

Fr a nks . J .

The de t e r mi na t i ve i s s ue on a ppe a l a s f r a me d by t he

a ppe lla nt s is : 

[ Whe t he r ] t he de f e nda nt s we r e de pr i ve d of a f a i r and

i mpa r t i a l j ur y be c a us e of J ur or Ra nki n’ s f a i l ur e t o

r e s pond t r ut hf ul l y on v oi r di r a nd f ur t he r , be c a us e

J ur or Ra nki n a nd pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l bot h f a i l e d t o

r e veal a r ecent at t or ne y/ c l i e nt r e l a t i ons hi p and an

upc omi ng t r i a l whe r e i n pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l woul d be

a c r uc i a l wi t ne s s on be ha l f of J ur or Ra nki n.
2

I n t hi s a c t i on whi c h r e s ul t e d i n a j ur y ve r di c t f or

t he pl a i nt i f f s , de f e nda nt s ’ c ouns e l , whe n c onduc t i ng t he v oi r

di r e , a s ke d of t he pr os pe c t i ve j ur or s :

Ha ve a ny of you, l a di e s a nd ge nt l e me n, e ve r be e n

r e pr e s e nt e d by Mr . Upc hur c h or hi s a s s oc i a t e , or

e mpl oye e , Eddi e Bor i ng?

Ha r r y Lee Ra nki n, a me mbe r of t he pa ne l , r e ma i ne d s i l e nt , and

s e r ve d as a me mbe r of t he t r i a l j ur y. 

Thi s i s s ue wa s r a i s e d i n a mot i on f or a ne w t r i a l ,

a nd t he Tr i a l J udge s ubpoe na e d Ra nki n who t e s t i f i e d t ha t he

di d not r e me mbe r t he a t t or ne y a s ki ng whe t he r pl a i nt i f f s ’

a t t or ne y ha d e ve r r e pr e s e nt e d hi m. The Tr i a l J udge ove r r ul e d

t he mot i on a nd de f e nda nt s a ppe a l e d.

As we not e d i n Te nne s s e e Far me r s Mut ual I ns ur anc e

Company v . Gr e e r , 682 S. W. 2d 920 ( Te nn. App. 1984) , t he r e a r e

t wo br oa d c l a s s e s of c a us e s f or t he c ha l l e nge of a j ur or :

Pr opt e r de f ect um a nd pr opt e r af f e c t um. The l a t t e r cl a s s i s

gr ounds f or c ha l l e nge ba s e d on s ome bi a s or pa r t i a l i t y e i t he r

a c t ua l l y s hown t o e xi s t or pr e s ume d t o e xi s t f r om

c i r c ums t a nces , and as t he Gr eer c our t obs e r ve d, t he

wi t hhol di ng of i nf or ma t i on a mount s t o f a l s e s we a r i ng a nd

r a i s e s t he pr e s umpt i on of bi a s a nd pa r t i a l i t y. I d. 924. 

Howe ve r , t he appe l l ees count e r t ha t a me r e

pr e s umpt i on i s c r e a t e d a nd t ha t t he r e c or d r e but s t he

pr e s umpt i on. I t i s f ur t he r a r gue d t ha t t he r e l a t i ons hi p

be t we e n t he j ur or a nd pl a i nt i f f s ’ a t t or ne y ?wa s a pa s t

r e l a t i ons hi p a nd not hi ng mor e . I t di d not r i s e t o t he l e ve l

of be i ng i nhe r e nt l y or pr e s umpt i ve pr e j udi c i a l . ? We cannot

a gr ee.

Thi s a c t i on wa s t r i e d on Oc t obe r 6, 1994. On
3

De c e mbe r 3, 1993, pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l f i l e d a n a ns we r a nd 

c r os s - c ompl a i nt on be ha l f of J ur or Ra nki n i n a n a c t i on br ought

a ga i ns t Ra nki n i n Bl e ds oe Count y. Among t he i s s ue s i n t ha t

c a s e wa s whe t he r Ra nki n’ s a t t or ne y, Upc hur c h, ha d i mpr ope r l y

not a r i z e d t he gr a nt or s ’ s i gna t ur e s t o a de e d whe r e i n Ra nki n

wa s gr a nt e e . I n Ma y of 1994, pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l t e s t i f i e d by

de pos i t i on i n J ur or Ra nki n’ s l a ws ui t , a nd whi l e no or de r wa s

e nt e r e d, the a ttor ne y’ s a f f i da vit s t a t e s tha t on Apr il 13,

1994, dur i ng di s c ove r y de pos i t i ons i n t he Cha nc e r y l i t i ga t i on,

?i t be c a me a ppa r e nt t ha t I c oul d not f ur t he r r e pr e s e nt Mr .

Ra nki n i n t ha t c a s e . Soon t he r e a f t e r I wi t hdr e w f r om t he c a s e

. . . . ?

Offi c e r s of t he Cour t a r e re qui r e d t o ?r e veal

pr ompt l y t o t he Cour t i mpr ope r c onduc t by a ve ni r e pe r s on or

j ur or . . . ? Te nne s s e e Supr e me Cour t Rul e 8, Code of

Pr of e s s i onal Re s pons i bi l i t y , DR7- 108( g) . I n t hi s a c t i on,

ne i t he r t he pr os pe c t i ve j ur or nor pl a i nt i f f s ’ a t t or ne y

r e ve a l e d the i r a t t or ne y/ c l i e nt r e l a t i ons hi p to the Cour t. The

Mi s s i s s i ppi Supr e me Cour t i n t he c a s e of Mar s hal l Dur bi n,

I nc ., v . Tew, 381 S. 2d 152 ( MS. 1980) , i n de a l i ng wi t h a l i ke

i ssue sa i d:

A l a wye r ’ s dut i e s a r e not c onf i ne d a l one t o s e r vi ng

hi s c l i e nt s . He i s a n of f i c e r of t he c our t a nd a s

s uc h i s c a l l e d on t o do a nd s a y wha t e ve r i s

ne c e s s a r y t o pr omot e t he f a i r a dmi ni s t r a t i on of

j us tic e . Mr . Le wi s s houl d ha ve c a lle d to the

c our t ’ s a nd oppos i ng c ouns e l ’ s a t t e nt i on, hi s

r e l a tions hi p with the jur or . . . . I n or de r to

a voi d a ny s ugge s t i on of i mpr opr i e t y, c ouns e l s houl d

a l wa ys di s c l os e a nd br i ng t o t he a t t e nt i on of t he

c our t a nd oppos i ng c ouns e l , t hi s t ype of

r e l a t i ons hi p wi t h pr os pe c t i ve j ur or s . I d. a t 154- 5.

I n or de r t o r e s ol ve t hi s i s s ue t he t ot a l i t y of t he

c i r c ums t a nc e s , not t he j ur or ’ s s e l f - s e r vi ng c l a i m of l a c k of
4

pa r tia lity a l one , is to be c ons i de r e d.

We do not be l i e ve t he pr e s umpt i on c r e a t e d by t he

f a l s e s we a r i ng of t he j ur or wa s ove r c ome . Thi s j ur or ha d be e n

r e pr e s e nt e d by pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l unt i l j us t a f e w mont hs

be f or e t hi s t r i a l , a nd ha d a n ongoi ng r e l a t i ons hi p wi t h

pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l i n t ha t pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l woul d be a

wi t ne s s on J ur or Ra nki n’ s be ha l f i n t he Cha nc e r y Cour t

pr oc e e di ng. Howe ve r , t he r e i s a mor e c ompe l l i ng gr ound t o

gr a nt de f e nda nt s a ne w tr i a l. Pl a i ntif f s ’ c ouns e l, a s we ll a s

t he pr os pe c t i ve j ur or , ha d a dut y t o r e ve a l t o t he Cour t a nd

a dve r s a r y c ouns e l t hi s r e l a t i ons hi p. Pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l

c oul d ha ve a voi de d a l l of t hi s by di s c ha r gi ng hi s dut y t o t he

Cour t . Mor e ove r , t he a ppe a r a nc e a l one i s pr e j udi c i a l t o t he

j udi c i a l pr oc e s s . See Rul e 36, T. R. A. P. For t he f or e goi ng

r eas ons we r e ve r s e t he Tr i a l Cour t and r e ma nd f or a ne w t r i a l .

We pr e t e r mi t t he r e ma i ni ng i s s ue s and as s e s s t he

c os t of t he appeal t o appe l l ees .

________________________

He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

CONCUR:
5

___________________________

Hous t on M. Godda r d, P. J .

___________________________

Cl i f f or d E. Sa nde r s , Sp. J .