# Clariday v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · December 30, 1976 · 552 S.W.2d 759

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775985

## Case

- **Full name:** Jack F. CLARIDAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Tennessee, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
- **Decided:** December 30, 1976
- **Citations:** 552 S.W.2d 759; 1976 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 306
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Galbreath
- **Judges:** Daughtrey, Russell, Galbreath
- **Cited by:** 42 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775985

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that there was no showing of improper influence, actual partiality, or inherent bias when counsel failed to elicit that a juror was the student of the District Attorney General, who did not participate in the trial
- holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the state to reopen its case in order to establish venue

## Opinion text

GALBREATH, Judge,
concurring.
While concurring without reservation in Judge Daughtrey’s opinion I would follow precedent laid down by such humane jurists as Mr. Justice Cook in Woodruff v. State, 164 Tenn. 530 , 51 S.W.2d 843 (1932), and urge that clemency, if appropriate, be extended if application is made on behalf of the defendant, whom I regard as a product of the same misguided but all too often tolerated approach to public service that resulted in the prosecutions of and clemency bestowed upon such political figures as a former President and Vice-President of the United States.
Hopefully, the painful lessons of recent years that have forcibly taught those entrusted with public office that they, even more than others, should refrain from violation of law, will be effective. It is doubtful if any useful purpose to society will be served by incarcerating any first offenders in this category, if it is made to appear that the chances of them again engaging in improper conduct is remote and that the chances for complete rehabilitation are promising. The deterrent effects of the ordeal inherent in the publicity surrounding the prosecution is probably much more effective than would be punishment and in illustrating graphically that, in our society, no person is above the law.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775985. Public record. Not legal advice.