Court of Appeals of Arkansas Rules That Court Bailiff Testifying For One of the Parties Was Not Grounds For a New Trial
Is it reversible error for a bailiff to testify for one of the parties in a court case after having interactions with jurors when they were in the jury pool? That was the question addressed by the Court of Appeals of Arkansas in its recent opinion in Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. v. McMillion, 2025 WL 1572827 (Ark. App. 2025).
In McMillion,
The appellants…are a trucking company and the driver of a semi-truck who was involved in a serious accident in St. Francis County. The appellees are two law enforcement officers and four members of a clean-up crew who alleged they were unwittingly exposed to hazardous materials. After a week-long jury trial, the appellees received a combined verdict of $75 million in compensatory damages.
Jeff Goff, a deputy for the St. Francis County Sheriff’s Department, responded to the accident. At trial, he testified for the appellees.
After the verdict, the appellants appealed, with the Court of Appeals of Arkansas framing one of the issue as follows:
At the time of trial, Jeff Goff was a sergeant with the St. Francis County Sheriff’s Office. Judge Wilson does not have a single bailiff who serves in each courthouse. Instead, when he presides over cases in St. Francis County, the St. Francis County Sheriff’s Office appoints an officer to serve as bailiff in that particular court. Goff assisted Judge Wilson as bailiff during some trials during the tenure of the jury pool for this case. The record is silent as to how many days Goff served as bailiff, whether other officers served, and exactly how much contact Goff had with any potential jurors during that period.
At the pretrial hearing, Judge Wilson clarified that Goff would not be serving as bailiff in the trial in this case. The appellants argue that the entire jury pool was tainted by Goff’s service, regardless of whether he served as the bailiff during the actual trial, and that the circuit court committed reversible error when it denied their motion to empanel a new jury pool. They claim that the jury’s previous interactions with Goff as a courtroom officer would cause the jury to give his testimony as a witness to the aftermath of the accident undue weight.
During voir dire, appellants’ counsel asked the potential jurors whether they remembered having interactions with Goff as a bailiff during their time in the jury pool, beginning in August or September (this trial was in December). Counsel also questioned each person who had already served on a jury about his or her interactions with Goff. Of those, four served as jurors in this trial. Those jurors stated during voir dire that Goff had no significant interactions with them beyond his opening doors, making sure they had what they needed, and making brief small talk. Appellants’ attorney also asked the panel, “Is there anything about your experience with Mr. Goff that would lead you to believe he is more trustworthy than the average person such as Mr. Foster, a truck driver?” The jurors answered no. The appellants also emphasize that they do not believe any misconduct occurred during this trial regarding Goff, but the fact that he previously served as bailiff for the panel gave an appearance of impropriety. The appellants did not ask the circuit court to strike for cause the four jurors who had actually served on a jury while Goff was bailiff. The only remedy they sought was to empanel an entirely new jury pool.
The court then dispensed with this issue pretty quickly, noting that
There are United States Supreme Court cases in which a bailiff testified as a witness during a criminal trial for which the bailiff was serving. See Turner v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 85 S.Ct. 546, 13 L.Ed.2d 424 (1965); Gonzales v. Beto, 405 U.S. 1052, 92 S.Ct. 1503, 31 L.Ed.2d 787 (1972). In those cases, the Supreme Court found reversible error. This case is different for several reasons. First, this is a civil matter rather than a criminal matter. Also, Goff was not a key witness because another witness testified to the same thing he did. Further, he did not serve as a bailiff during the trial.
-CM