The Specific Problems in the Turnbough/Rogers Case

By Dave and Dawn Campbell

Because city 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 (as in the Turnbough/Rogers case), they must include a specific question asking if the jury found actual malice by “clear and convincing evidence.”

In the case of Turnbough/Rogers, the court used a simplified form skipping the specific elements (malice) and went straight to the “ultimate issue” (Who do you find for?). When a form says “Special Interrogatories” but doesn't actually ask about the special legal elements required for public officials, the verdict is legally insufficient.

The unsigned damage pages, no case style, no polling, and fragmented pages created an invalid verdict.

Arkansas Rule 49 is strict. If the pages aren't numbered or connected by a case style, it is very difficult for a court to prove the jury actually agreed to the $400,000 listed on unsigned, separate sheets of paper.

The “Special Interrogatories” failed to ask about Actual Malice and the damage findings were not signed; therefore, the verdict is technically “incomplete” and “voidable.”

In Arkansas law, there are distinct legal findings, and each must independently satisfy constitutional and procedural requirements.

1. Interrogatories are “Separate Verdicts”

Under Arkansas Model Jury Instruction (AMI) 3501, when a case is submitted on interrogatories, the answer to each question is considered a separate verdict.

• Independent Deliberation: The jury must deliberate and reach an agreement on the specific dollar amount for damages and the specific percentages for fault apportionment separately from the question of who “won.”
• Non-Transferable Agreement: A juror might agree on Liability but disagree entirely on the amount of money to be awarded (Damages). Without a signature on the damages interrogatory, there is no legal evidence the required number of jurors agreed to specific findings.

2. The Signature Rule is Not Cumulative

The Arkansas Constitution, Art. 2, § 7, is very specific about signature requirements for non-unanimous verdicts.

The Rule: If the jury is not unanimous (12-0), every consenting juror must sign the specific interrogatory they agree with.

The Gap: Since each interrogatory is a separate verdict, a signature on the liability page (Interrogatory #1) does not “count” for the damages page (Interrogatory #9). Since Interrogatories #9 through #12 were not signed, under the Arkansas Constitution, those specific verdicts were never constitutionally rendered.

3. Apportionment is a Specific Finding

The apportionment of fault (Interrogatories #10 and #12) is its own “ultimate issue.”

• Precision Required: A jury must specifically agree on how to split the 100% responsibility. For example, nine jurors might agree on who was responsible, but only six might agree it should be a 50/50 split.
• The Constitutional Bar: If the court “assumes” agreement on an unsigned apportionment interrogatory, it is bypassing the mandatory procedural protections which ensure a defendant is only held liable for their proportional share of fault.

Phantom Consensus:

The court cannot bridge the gap between 'Who' and 'How Much' through sheer assumption. In Arkansas, liability and damages are separate verdicts requiring separate agreements and separate signatures. By entering a judgment based on unsigned damage forms, the court didn't just guess—it violated the Arkansas Constitution – AGAIN! (FYI: On 10/28/2025, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled the Mammoth Spring police chief’s unconstitutional “Preliminary Injunction” constituted “Prior Restraint on Free Speech” and did vacate their unconstitutionality, proving “Actual Malice” is required to further proceed, which you now can see how that went. Another Constitutional Violation!)

Silence is Not a Signature

Under Arkansas Constitution Art. 2, § 7, when a civil verdict is reached by fewer than twelve jurors (such as a 9-3 or 10-2 split), the law is absolute: “all the jurors consenting to such verdict shall sign the same.”

The “Shall” Mandate: The word “shall” in the Constitution means it is mandatory, not optional. A judge cannot use verbal “silence” to substitute for physical signatures.

Why the “Group Question” Fails

If the judge merely asked “Does everyone agree?” and accepted silence as a “yes,” the record remains fatally flawed because:

1. It masks the count: Without individual signatures or a formal individual poll, there is no way for an appellate court to verify if the mandatory nine-juror minimum was actually met.
2. It ignores the Constitution: The Arkansas Supreme Court has historically protected the Article 2, § 7 signature requirement as a fundamental safeguard against “phantom” verdicts.

Judge Meyer’s attempt to use “group silence” is a legal shortcut directly bypassing the Arkansas Constitution. In Fulton County, 'silence' was used to allegedly award $800,000. But the Arkansas Constitution doesn't accept silence; it demands signatures. By failing to provide signature lines and failing to secure individual consent on the record, the circuit court created a 'phantom debt' which has no basis in constitutional law.

A sitting judge is prohibited from personally practicing law. For Mammoth Spring’s city officials, Holly Meyer apparently took up lead counsel for the city’s non-entity law firm (The Iron Rock Law Firm, PLLC) in an attempt to correct legal errors during active proceedings where she offered a chicken dinner to city officials’ legal counsel, and allowed her staff to dine amongst the jurors.

Surveillance videos also proves the city officials’ three attorneys received an off-the-record 19-minute consultation from the robed Holly Meyer while the jury was locked in their room and the court reporter was locked out of the legal consultation. Post-trial, Meyer spent another eight minutes instructing Plaintiffs’ legal trio from a big, black book she retrieved from the bench. Surveillance video also proves Sheriff Smith sat in Plaintiff Police Chief Turnbough’s chair during the chicken-and-gravy fellowship in the courtroom, as several jurors walked through to witness his show of support.