Carroll v. State

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

This conviction was for horse-theft. Appellant did not testify in his own behalf. After the jury had retired, they had a ballot resulting in nine for conviction and three for acquittal. The question was asked whether appellant did not testify; and some of the jurors swear that one of the jurors stated that he knew better. On another occasion- one of the jurors mentioned the fact that appellant did not testify, and asked the reason. To this the reply was made that there was no necessity for it, as the sheriff had testified to what defendant would testify. It seems…