Sandra K. Lewis, and husband, Carlton Lewis v. Jason M. Pendergrass and R. Eugene Pendergrass
Opinion
I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN SECTI ON FILED April 3, 1996
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk SANDRA K. LEW S a nd hus ba nd, I ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9510- CV- 00369 CARLTON LEW S, I ) ) BLEDSOE LAW Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l e e s , ) ) HON. J . CURTI S SM TH, I v. ) J UDGE ) J ASON M PENDERGRASS a nd . ) R. EUGENE PENDERGRASS, ) REVERSED ) AND De f e nda nt s - Appe l l a n t s . ) REMANDED
HOWARD L. UPCHURCH, Pi ke vi l l e , f or Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l e e s .
LYNNE D. SW AFFORD, SW AFFORD & SWAFFORD, Pi ke vi l l e , f or De f e n d a 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 h e
a p p e l l a nt s i s :
[ W 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 a nd he 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 u s 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 ve a l a r e c e nt a t t or ne y/ c l i e nt r e l a t i ons hi p a nd a n 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 b e a c r uc i a l wi t ne s s on be ha l f of J ur or Ra nki n. 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 o r
t h e p l 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
d i 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 M . Upc hur c h or hi s a s s oc i a t e , or r e mpl oye e , Eddi e Bor i ng?
Ha r r y Le e Ra nki n, a me mb e r of t he pa ne l , r e ma i ne d s i l e nt , a nd
s e r v e d a s a me mbe r o f 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 n d 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
d i d n o t 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 o r n e 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 h e mo t 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 M ual I ns ur anc e ut
Co mp a n y v . Gr e e r , 682 S. W 2d 920 ( Te nn. App. 1984) , t he r e a r e .
t wo b r oa d c l a s s e s of c a u s e s f or t he c ha l l e nge of a j ur or :
Pr o p t e r d e f e c t um a nd pr opt e r af f e c t um. The l a t t e r c l a s s i s
g r o u n d s 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 h e r
a c t u a 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 nc e s , a nd a s t he Gr e e r c our t obs e r ve d, t he
wi t h h o l 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 a ppe l l e e s c ount e r t ha t a me r e
p r e s u mpt 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
p r e s u mpt 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
b e t we e n t he j ur or a nd p l 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 n g mor e . I t di d not r i s e t o t he l e ve l
o f b e i ng i nhe r e nt l y or pr e s umpt i ve pr e j udi c i a l . ? W c a nnot e
a gr e e .
Thi s a c t i on wa s t r i e d on Oc t obe r 6, 1994. On
2 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 o s 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 ou g h t
a g a i n s 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
n o t 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 g r a nt e e . I n M y of 1994, pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l t e s t i f i e d b y a
d e p o s 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 n t e r e d, t h e a t t or ne y’ s a f f i da vi t s t a t e s t ha t on Apr i l 13,
1 9 9 4 , 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 o n ,
?i t b e 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 M . r
Ra n k i 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
. . . .?
Of f i c e r s o f t he Cour t a r e r e qui r e d t o ?r e ve a l
p r o mp t 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 o r . . . ? Te nne s s e e Supr e me Cour t Rul e 8, Code of
Pr o f 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,
n e i t h e 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 v e a l e d t he i r a t t or ne y/ c l i e nt r e l a t i ons hi p t o t he Cour t . Th e
M s s i s s i ppi Supr e me Cour t i n t he c a s e of M s hal l Dur bi n, i ar
I n c . , v . Te w, 381 S. 2d 152 ( MS. 1980) , i n de a l i ng wi t h a l i k e
i s s ue s a 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 n g 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 t i c e . M . Le wi s s houl d ha ve c a l l e d t o t he r 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 t i ons hi p wi t h t he j ur or . . . . I n or de r t o 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 o r 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 u ms 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
3 p a r t i a l i t y a l one , i s t o be c ons i de r e d.
W 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 e
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 b e e n
r e p r 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
b e f o r 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
p l a i n t 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 n e 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
p r o c e e di ng. Howe ve r , t h e r e i s a mor e c ompe l l i ng gr ound t o
g r a n t de f e nda nt s a n e w t r i a l . Pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l , a s we l l a s
t h e p r os pe c t i ve j ur or , h a d a dut y t o r e ve a l t o t he Cour t a n d
a d v e 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 o u l 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 h e
Co u r t . M 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 or
j ud i c i a l pr oc e s s . Se e Rul e 36, T. R. A. P. For t he f or e goi n g
r e a s o n s we r e ve r s e t he Tr i a l Cour t a nd r e ma nd f or a ne w t r i a l .
W pr e t e r mi t t he r e ma i ni ng i s s ue s a nd a s s e s s t he e
c os t o f t he a ppe a l t o a ppe l l e e s .
________________________
He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Sandra K. Lewis, and husband, Carlton Lewis v. Jason M. Pendergrass and R. Eugene Pendergrass (Sandra K. Lewis, and husband, Carlton Lewis v. Jason M. Pendergrass and R. Eugene Pendergrass) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.