Court Opinion

ID: 9772598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:23:32.523003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:46.121664
License: Public Domain

OVERSTREET, Judge,
dissents with the following note:
I suppose one could play on words as the majority apparently approves of to the infringement of an accused right to fair trial; however I refuse to do so. The facts of the voir dire proceeding are not in dispute and *374well chronicled in the majority opinion and dissenting opinion.
The central issue in this case is whether the presiding juror and the elected prosecutor had a relationship that in all candor should have been disclosed to the defense. If there is a requirement to be candid and above board, the answer is yes. If trial by ambush is allowed and out of town lawyers can be hoodwinked, then sadly the answer is no.
Without question the conduct of the lawyer representing the accused would have been different if the relationship had been revealed. The record reflects that the juror would have been challenged for cause and failing success there, peremptorily struck.
The juror’s explanation as to why she did not reveal the relationship is weak at best, the prosecutor’s, because as an officer of the court has a greater responsibility, should be condemned.
With these comments I dissent to the majority and otherwise join the dissenting opinion.
MALONEY, J., joins Parts I and II of Judge BAIRD’s dissenting opinion.