the presumption is that jurors are true to their oaths and conscientiously follow the trial court's instructions
How later courts described this case
- the presumption is that jurors are true to their oaths and conscientiously follow the trial court's instructions
- approved response, ‘Your question cannot be answered by this court. This is not a matter for you to consider.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PARKS, Judge,
specially concurring:
I agree in the affirmance of appellant’s conviction but wish to address the question of the inquiry into prior arrests during cross-examination. Under 12 O.S.1981, § 2608(B), specific instances of conduct may be the subject of inquiry as long as they meet certain requirements set out in the statute. Accordingly, while this Court continues to adhere to the general rule that arrests are inadmissible, the acts leading up to the arrest may be admissible under Section 2608(B). See United States v. Dennis, 625 F.2d 782, 798 (8th Cir.1980).
Application of this rationale to the instant case leads me to the conclusion that *919 defense counsel’s actions in questioning appellant about his prior arrests “might be considered sound trial strategy.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689-90 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2065 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Since it was possible that the acts leading up to this prior arrest would be the subject of inquiry by the prosecutor, sound trial strategy possibly led defense counsel to initiate the inquiry into these acts so as to convince the jury of appellant’s honesty.
Accordingly, I concur.