would foster suspicion and distrust and risk erosion of the public’s confidence in the integrity of our jury system. Allowing the spouse of the prosecutor to serve as the bailiff in charge of the jury could lead some with cynical minds to believe that the jury could have been improperly influenced in some manner. We wish to emphasize that there is absolutely nothing in the record to remotely suggest that the bailiff actually attempted to influence the jury in any manner. However, whether any tampering or attempted tampering took place is irrelevant. It is the appearance of the opportunity for such influence that is determinative.” State v. Wilson, 314 N.C. 653, 656, 336 S.E.2d 76, 77 (1985)(some emphasis added). See also State v. Mettrick, 305 N.C. 383, 385, 289 S.E.2d 354, 356 (1982)(<HOLDING>). Similarly to the sentiment expressed in these
holding that with respect to discovery abuses prejudice from unreasonable delay is presumed  and failure to comply with court orders mandating discovery is sufficient prejudice holding that prejudice is only presumed if there is proof of an actual conflict of interest holding loss of documents and death of witness did not impair defense where both events occurred when there was no presumption of prejudice holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice holding that prejudice is conclusively presumed where a witness was acting as a custodian of a jury because of the cynical minds that would leap to a conclusion that tampering or prejudice had occurred