Court Opinion

ID: 9769629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:56:45.052381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:05.836017
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, dissenting. In Sanson v. Pullum, 273 Ark. 325, 619 S.W.2d 641 (1980), we said: We take this opportunity to state unequivocally, for the guidance of the Bar, that in our opinion it is improper for a lawyer to interview jurors after a trial in an effort to obtain such inadmissible affidavits to impeach their own verdict. We should delete the word “unequivocally” because the majority is not enforcing our policy and rule. A rule not enforced is no rule at all. The trial court admitted over the objections of appellant the statements of the jurors taken contrary to the Sanson decision. They were improperly taken and improperly admitted as evidence. We will never know whether they influenced the judge in his decision. The only party innocent of a mistake is the appellant. The trial court’s error can only be corrected by a new trial. Hays, J., joins in this dissent.