of the affidavit. Similarly, Crow’s participation as the judge in the plea-and-arraignment hearing is a matter of clear and weighty importance and cannot be considered merely, an administrative responsibility. We have held that a criminal defendant has a right to an arraignment hearing. Hamm v. State, 365 Ark, 647, 232 S.W.3d 463 (2006). Additionally, Crow was required to Ract in his official judicial capacity in presiding over the plea-and-arraignment hearing— not’ in an administrative capacity. See Mississippi Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Atkinson, 645 So.2d 1331 (Miss.1994) (lawyers participation as a judge, was substantial where the judge’s action- in his judicial capacity was required.to perform the action); see also Baldridge v. State, 289 Kan. 618, 215 P.3d 585 (Kan.2009) (<HOLDING>). As a final point, Floyd also argues that the
holding that admissions purportedly made by an accused by way of his agents or attorneys in pleadings from a civil case are not admissible in a criminal case unless shown to have been authorized by him holding that even where a client was more sophisticated in business matters than the lawyer himself the lawyer should have assumed the client was relying on the lawyer for the legal aspects of the loan from the client to the lawyer to the same extent that the client would rely on the lawyer for advice were the client making the loan to a third person holding that final judgment in a criminal case means sentence holding that for all intents and purposes the instant case is the same action that was brought previously we therefore find the application of the doctrine of the law of the case to be appropriate holding that a lawyer was disqualified from representation in a criminal case when he had previously authorized the issuance of subpoenas for evidence used in the case