Because public officials are involved, the U.S. Supreme Court (under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan) and Arkansas law require a finding of Actual Malice. When a judge uses Special Interrogatories in a public-official defamation case, appellate frameworks dictate the forms must include a specific inquiry asking if the jury found actual malice by "clear and convincing evidence."

In the trial of Turnbough & Rogers v. Campbells, the court utilized an interrogatory format the defense argues skipped mandatory constitutional elements, moving directly to a generalized finding of liability. The defense maintains: when a verdict form is designated as "Special Interrogatories" but omits the core constitutional components required to overcome a public official's burden of proof, the underlying verdict is legally insufficient.

Furthermore, the defense contends, the presence of unsigned damage pages, a lack of standard case styling on separate sheets, and the absence of an individualized jury poll resulted in a procedurally-invalid verdict.

Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 49 establishes strict guidelines for special verdicts. The defense argues on appeal: because the damages pages lacked connecting case styles or sequential numbering, the record fails to legally establish the required statutory consensus was ever reached regarding the $400,000 figures written on the unsigned sheets. Because the interrogatories omitted the question of actual malice and the specific damages lines remained unexecuted, the defense maintains the resulting judgment is technically incomplete and voidable.

The Legal Distinction Between Liability and Damages

Under Arkansas civil jurisprudence, distinct legal findings must independently satisfy constitutional and procedural requirements.

1. Interrogatories as Separate Verdicts

Under the framework of Arkansas Model Jury Instruction (AMI) Civil 3501, when a case is submitted to a jury via special interrogatories, the answer to each individual question constitutes a separate, independent verdict.

• Independent Deliberation: The jury must reach a distinct agreement on specific dollar amounts for damages and fault apportionment independently from the initial question of liability.
• Non-Transferable Consensus: A juror may find a party liable but disagree entirely on the financial calculation of damages. The defense argues that without executing signatures on the specific damages interrogatories, the record lacks proper evidence that a lawful consensus was constitutionally rendered.

2. The Non-Cumulative Nature of the Signature Rule

The Arkansas Constitution, Article 2, § 7, outlines strict signature requirements for non-unanimous civil verdicts, mandating that if a verdict is not unanimous, all consenting jurors must sign. Because each interrogatory operates as a separate verdict, a signature executed on a liability page (such as Interrogatory #1) cannot legally transfer to validate an unsigned damages page (such as Interrogatory #9). Because Interrogatories #9 through #12 were processed without executing signatures, the defense maintains those specific findings were never lawfully rendered.

3. Apportionment as a Specific Finding

The apportionment of fault represents its own independent finding. A jury must explicitly agree on how to divide 100% of the responsibility. The defense argues that if a court enters a judgment based on an unsigned apportionment form, it bypasses the procedural protections designed to ensure a defendant is only held liable for their proportional share of fault. The defense maintains that a circuit court cannot bridge the gap between liability and damages through assumption, and that entering a monetary judgment based on unexecuted paperwork violates the foundational protections of the Arkansas Constitution.

This argument follows a prior October 28, 2025, decision where the Arkansas Supreme Court officially vacated a preliminary injunction in this matter, ruling it an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech and establishing that actual malice remains a necessary hurdle in proceedings involving public expression.

The Constitutional Requirement of Execution Over Silence

Under Arkansas Constitution Article 2, § 7, when a civil verdict is reached by a non-unanimous split, the constitutional mandate is explicit: "all the jurors consenting to such verdict shall sign the same." The use of the word "shall" renders the signature requirement mandatory.

The defense maintains: a court cannot substitute a collective verbal inquiry or group silence for individual written execution on the record, because general assent masks the true count, prevents an appellate court from verifying the nine-juror minimum was met, and departs from the protections historical Arkansas jurisprudence places on the execution of civil verdicts. Specifically, the lack of individual signatures or a formal individualized poll makes it impossible to verify from the face of the record whether the verdict was actually unanimous or a non-unanimous split, thereby violating the verification safeguards required by Article 2, § 7. By failing to provide signature lines on pages 9-12 and failing to secure individual signatures, the proceeding resulted in an irregular entry of debt lacking a basis in constitutional execution.

Visual Alignment and Record Limitations

Beyond the document architecture, newly reviewed courthouse surveillance logs have drawn defense scrutiny regarding the administrative ambiance of the venue. The defense's appellate filings allege a notable breakdown in standard administrative distance, pointing to recorded instances of court personnel interactions and unrecorded sidebar transitions within and outside of the well.

According to the defense's review of the security logs, court monitors recorded a 19-minute closed-door session between the presiding circuit judge and the plaintiffs' legal counsel while the jury remained in the deliberation block, an event the defense highlights occurred outside the presence of the court reporter. Separate security tracks capture post-trial logistical reviews at the bench involving Plaintiffs' legal team, along with separate visual logs of county security personnel occupying areas within the well during trial transitions.

The defense maintains: these compounding environmental factors, paired with the unrecorded sessions and the unsigned interrogatory layouts, created an asymmetrical trial environment failing to preserve the strict appearance of administrative parity required to protect self-represented litigants.