required that motions for reconsideration be filed within ten days of the judgment in order to toll the time to appeal a final judgment. 5 The notice of appeal was filed on May 5, 1999. 6 Letchas was represented in the lawsuit by an attorney from the Drew, Eckl & Farnham law firm. A separate lawyer from Drew, Eckl & Farnham represented Leibel in the instant case. 7 According to the deposition transcript, which was included in the appellate record, Letchas’s 1992 deposition lasted one hour. 8 (Punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Isaacs v. State, 259 Ga. 717, 740-741 (44) (e) (386 SE2d 316) (1989), quoting McDonough Power Equip, v. Greenwood, 464 U. S. 548, 555-556 (104 SC 845, 78 LE2d 663) (1984). See also Gainesville Radiology Group v. Hummel, 263 Ga. 91, 94 (428 SE2d 786) (1993) (<HOLDING>) (punctuation omitted). 9 Gainesville Radiology
holding that the jurors failure to remember particular facts inquired about on voir dire and the jurors misunderstanding of voir dire questions do not constitute probable prejudice holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire holding that trial courts denial of motion for new trial based on juror misconduct was justified where there was no evidence presented at hearing on motion that juror had knowingly concealed relevant litigation experience during voir dire and identity of juror as county court litigant was not demonstrated holding that a court must allow the defendant to ask in voir dire whether a potential juror would automatically impose the death penalty and suggesting that such a juror should be disqualified for cause holding that new trials will not be granted unless the movant can demonstrate that a juror failed to answer or to answer honestly a material question on voir dire and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause