Court Opinion

ID: 9760248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:44:30.571314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:09.756365
License: Public Domain

Donald L. Corbin, Judge, dissenting. Court proceedings must not only be fair and impartial, they must also appear to be fair and impartial, not only for the benefit of the litigants directly involved, but this is necessary in order to maintain the public’s confidence in the judicial system. Oliver v. State, 268 Ark. 579, 594 S.W. 2d 261 (1980). We do not, in any sense, attach any improper motives to the actions of the prosecutor or his staff for what occurred in this case. However, we are convinced that this trial lacked the appearance of fairness and impartiality which has been the bedrock of our judicial system. The Arkansas Supreme Court has repeatedly criticized the practice of the lawyer acting as both witness and advocate in civil cases. See Bowling v. Gibson, 266 Ark. 310, 584 S.W. 2d 14 (1979), and cases cited therein. The majority argues that a lack of a financial interest in the outcome of a criminal prosecution sets the prosecutor and his office apart from other lawyers. However, experience and common sense tell us that the prosecutor is, of course, vitally interested in the outcome of criminal prosecutions. To say that the lack of a financial interest exempts him from the standards applicable to the practicing bar is to take an unrealistic view of the criminal justice system. The majority notes that the prosecutor was not acting as an advocate, but as a witness. However, it was clearly the staff which he hires and supervises which carried out the prosecution in this case. Again, although we reiterate that we attach no improper motives to the prosecutor or his staff in this case, we believe the interests of fairness and justice would have been better served through the appointment of a special prosecutor. I therefore respectfully dissent. I am authorized to say that Judge Glaze joins me in this dissent.