Surma v. State

It is the contention of the defendants that they are entitled to a new trial because the bailiff placed in charge of the jury during its deliberations was a deputy sheriff who had been one of the arresting officers and one of the officers who had obtained an alleged confession from the defendants, and had also been one of the witnesses who testified in behalf of the state at the trial.

During the time that the case was intrusted to the jury, the members of the jury were taken to supper in a public eating place. The bailiff during this meal was seated at the table at which the male jurors ate…