“We have recognized that the conduct of an attorney in going outside of the record may be so reprehensible and so manifestly intended to mislead the jury as to be ground for reversal, even though the court may have attempted to correct the error.”
How later courts described this case
- “We have recognized that the conduct of an attorney in going outside of the record may be so reprehensible and so manifestly intended to mislead the jury as to be ground for reversal, even though the court may have attempted to correct the error.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Petition ior rehearing denied September 11, 1945
ON PETITION FOE EEHEAEING-
( 161 P. (2d) 670 )
BRAND, J.
With full appreciation of the gravity of the issues involved, we have given careful consideration to the petition for rehearing which has been filed on behalf of the defendant by Attorneys Edwin D. Hicks and Thomas H. Tongue, III. That petition raises no issues which were not considered by the court upon the first hearing. We adhere to our original conclusion that no reversible error was committed at the trial. The petition is therefore denied.
The record will show that the attorneys who filed the petition and who have ably presented their case did not participate in the trial of the cause in the circuit court.