The Appellate Division recently vacated a $300,000 jury award in a personal injury lawsuit due to plaintiff’s counsel’s improper use of a PowerPoint presentation during his closing argument˳ In this matter, Anthony Romano filed a lawsuit against Michael Stubbs in connection with an altercation which occurred in the Bergen County Courthouse on February 23, 2006˳
On that date, Stubbs was in court for a hearing in connection with a domestic violence complaint filed by his wife and a determination as to whether a temporary restraining order should be made permanent˳ While in court, an officer approached Stubbs and told him that a warrant had been issued for his arrest due to his alleged violation earlier in the day of the temporary restraining order˳ Romano, who was an officer in the courtroom, assisted in arresting Romano after he resisted arrest˳ During the altercation, Stubbs fell on top of Romano forcing Stubb’s elbow into the ground˳ Stubbs ultimately pled guilty to a petty disorderly persons offense for this altercation˳
Romano alleged that as a result of this incident he sustained an injury to the ulnar nerve in his elbow which required surgery˳ Additionally, Romano claimed that he injured his neck warranting a spinal fusion˳ Romano in turn filed a negligence lawsuit against Stubbs˳
At issue in this case was plaintiff’s counsel’s use of a PowerPoint presentation during his closing argument˳ During the recess between defense counsel’s closing argument and the start of plaintiff’s counsel’s closing argument, it was disclosed for the first time that plaintiff intended to use a PowerPoint presentation during closing˳ Defense counsel objected to plaintiff’s counsel utilizing the PowerPoint presentation at that point˳ The trial judge permitted the use of the PowerPoint presentation finding that plaintiff’s counsel would not be projecting anything he would not say in his argument˳
During his closing argument, plaintiff’s counsel utilized the PowerPoint presentation to support his argument that Stubbs decision to proceed to trial reflected a bad character and his refusal to accept responsibility for the happening of the incident˳ Additionally, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Stubbs and his attorney were acting in concert to blame Romano˳ Also, during the presentation, plaintiff’s counsel projected words indicating that Stubbs was a criminal, had a propensity for violence and that the jury needed to “send a message˳” Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict of $300,000 to compensate Romano for his injuries˳
In reviewing this matter, the Appellate Division noted that generally closing arguments based on the evidence are permissible, but arguments that “shift the jury’s focus from a fair evaluation of the evidence to pursue instead a course designed to inflame a jury, by appealing repeatedly to inappropriate and irrelevant considerations are not˳” The Court recognized that while “counsel has broad latitude to passionately advocate their clients’ cases in summation, there are some clear boundaries˳”
Taken as a whole, the Court found that plaintiff’s counsel had made improper arguments through the use of his PowerPoint presentation˳ The Court found that arguing and projecting words that: (1) the jury needed to send a message; (2) Stubbs was a violent person; (3) Stubbs was a criminal; (4) Stubbs decision to go to trial was evidence of a bad character; and (5) Stubbs and his counsel were “working” to blame Romano, constituted improper arguments˳ As such, the Court found that “the cumulative impact of multiple transgressions in plaintiff’s closing argument leaves us with no confidence in the fairness of the damages awarded˳”
Accordingly, the damage award was vacated and the matter was sent back to the trial court for a retrial on damages˳
Source by https://ezinearticles˳com/?Improper-PowerPoint-Presentation-Results-in-a-$300,000-Verdict-Being-Thrown-Out&id=5752878
