Pubdate: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 Source: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (AR) Copyright: 2001 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. Contact: 121 East Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72201 Website: http://www.ardemgaz.com/ Forum: http://www.ardemgaz.com/info/voices.html Author: Larry Ault - Arkansas Democrat-Gazette APPEALS COURT OVERTURNS DRUG CONVICTIONS OF PAIR The Arkansas Court of Appeals on Wednesday reversed a lower court in the case of two people convicted on charges of growing marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. In a decision written by Court of Appeals Judge Olly Neal, the court overturned the convictions and ordered new trials for Jimmy Easley and Vicky Wagner Easley, who each had been sentenced to 20 years in prison. The two asked the appeals court to overturn their convictions in Clark County Circuit Court because the trial judge, Circuit Judge John A. Thomas, had improperly communicated with the jury after it began deliberating. They also contended that the judge erred by allowing the state to introduce as evidence 39 exhibits that prosecutors failed to share with defense attorneys during pretrial discovery. Because the appeals court agreed that the trial judge had made a mistake by communicating with the jury after it began deliberations, it didn't issue a decision on the evidence challenge. During deliberations, the jury sent two notes containing questions to the trial judge. The appeals court said that the trial record does not contain the jury's note or the court's answer to the question: "We don't all agree on the verdict, what happens?" The second note dealt with questions about a photograph and what it represented. The court record showed that the photograph had been withdrawn from evidence even though the jury had seen it. "Absent a record of the actual exchange between the judge and the jury, the state cannot overcome the presumption that the defendant has been prejudiced," the appeals court ruled. The appeals court ruled that the state failed to establish "what the trial judge's note to the jury actually said" and held the judge's action was prejudicial to the Easleys. - --- MAP posted-by: Kirk Bauer