Court Opinion

ID: 9676328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:21:58.032877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:47.679211
License: Public Domain

Conley Byrd, Justice, dissenting. I disagree with the majority’s assertion that the record here is “substantially identical” with those followed by this court in Martin v. State, 254 Ark. 1065, 497 S.W. 2d 268 (1973), and Carter and Burkhead v. State, 255 Ark. 225, 500 S.W. 2d 368 (1973). The record in the Martin case, as copied in the opinion recites: “Thereupon, by agreement, the court and the attorneys entered the jury room, and the following proceedings were had and done ... .” The record in the Carter and Burkhead case, at page 171 thereof, recites that the first invasion of the jury room was “upon agreement of all parties.” (See appellant’s Abstract and Brief page 74). In this case there is no recitation of an agreement. In Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 13 S. Ct. 136, 36 L. Ed. 1011 (1872), when considering a similar problem the United States Supreme Court said: "... [A]nd it appears to be well settled that where the personal presence is necessary in point of law, the record must show the fact ... .” Aside from the fact that I do not think the record here shows a waiver of appellants’ right to be present, there is still another reason to hold the proceedings erroneous — i.e., it violated the “right to a public trial.” The record here shows that the trial judge and trial counsel made numerous trips into the jury room. Irrespective of who attended the trial whether they be friends and relatives of the prosecution or the upright citizens and relatives of the appellant, none of them will be in a position to dispute any accusations that the accused may make as to what transpired in the jury room during any one of the many trips. While the cold record of the court reporter may take down the words that were stated, it cannot reach those inflections of the voice nor the so-called “body language” which occasionally speaks louder than words. A public trial requires neither great skill nor Herculean endeavor. It is a simple matter of placing all the facts and the applicable law upon top of the table in broad open view before the accused, the jury and the public. The fact that every criminal trial is subject to contemporaneous review in the forum of public opinion has generally been considered an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial power, United States v. Kobli, 172 F. 2d 919 (3rd Cir. 1949). It also enables spectators to learn about their government and to acquire confidence in their judicial remedies. For the reasons stated I respectfully dissent.