Did attorney misconduct sway jury in injury case? (Nevada No. 30158)

Have you ever felt wronged by an outcome in a legal case, only to wonder if something went awry during the trial? Many people face similar frustrations, especially when they suspect misconduct might have skewed a jury's decision. Fortunately, the landmark case DEJESUS v. FLICK offers a guiding precedent for addressing such issues, so take a closer look to see how it might provide a remedy.

Case No. 30158 Situation

Case Overview

Specific Situation

In a dramatic incident on a Las Vegas freeway, an altercation between two vehicles led to a significant legal battle. An individual, whom we’ll call the “plaintiff,” was a passenger in a car driven by her sister. They were pursued aggressively by another driver, whom we’ll refer to as the “defendant.” The defendant’s actions forced the plaintiff’s vehicle off the road, resulting in an accident. The situation escalated when the defendant exited his vehicle and confronted the plaintiff and her sister in a threatening manner. This confrontation culminated in legal proceedings as the plaintiff sought to address the physical and emotional injuries she sustained.

Plaintiff’s Argument

The plaintiff, a woman who was in the passenger seat during the incident, claims that she suffered severe and lasting injuries due to the defendant’s reckless behavior. She asserts that the defendant’s aggressive driving and subsequent actions caused her permanent brain and nerve damage. She seeks compensation for her injuries, medical expenses, and the impact on her quality of life.

Defendant’s Argument

The defendant, the individual accused of aggressive driving, disputes the plaintiff’s claims regarding the extent and cause of her injuries. He argues that the plaintiff’s symptoms were not related to the incident and presents evidence suggesting that the plaintiff had pre-existing medical conditions. The defendant also questions the credibility of the plaintiff’s medical experts and contends that the damages claimed are excessive.

Judgment Outcome

The court ruled in favor of the defendant, determining that the plaintiff’s attorney’s conduct during the trial improperly influenced the jury’s decision. As a result, the verdict awarding the plaintiff $1,470,000 was overturned. The court ordered a new trial to reassess the damages, emphasizing the need for a fair proceeding free from undue influence or prejudice.

Case No. 30158 Relevant Statutes

NRCP 59(a)(2)

This statute allows for a new trial to be granted based on the “misconduct of the jury or prevailing party.” In this case, the court examined whether the conduct of Sherry Flick’s attorney during the trial reached a level of misconduct that improperly swayed the jury. When an attorney’s behavior significantly affects the fairness of the trial, the court can decide that a new trial is necessary. It’s like hitting the reset button when things get too out of hand.

NRCP 59(a)(6)

NRCP 59(a)(6) provides for a new trial when “excessive damages” are given under the influence of “passion or prejudice.” Here, the jury awarded damages far beyond what was supported by the evidence. The court needed to determine if the jury’s decision was driven more by emotion or bias than by the facts presented. This rule helps ensure that awards are fair and based on reality, not just on what might feel right in the heat of the moment.

SCR 173

This rule states that a lawyer should not express personal opinions about the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, or the culpability of a party in a civil case. In plain terms, attorneys must keep their personal feelings and biases out of their arguments. The rule aims to maintain professionalism and ensure that the jury’s decision is based on evidence and legal standards, not on the lawyer’s personal views or emotional appeals. Violating this rule can result in a verdict being overturned if it appears that the attorney’s personal opinions improperly influenced the jury’s decision.

Case No. 30158 Judgment Criteria

Principled Interpretation

NRCP 59(a)(2)

Under the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (NRCP) 59(a)(2), a new trial may be granted due to “misconduct of the jury or prevailing party.” This rule is generally interpreted to mean that any behavior by the winning side that might unfairly sway the jury can be grounds for a retrial. The key factor here is whether the misconduct affected the fairness of the trial, not necessarily whether it changed the outcome.

NRCP 59(a)(6)

NRCP 59(a)(6) allows for a new trial if “excessive damages” are awarded under the “influence of passion or prejudice.” This means that when a jury’s award appears disproportionately large and seems to stem from emotional rather than factual considerations, it can be challenged. The rule is applied to ensure that awards are based on evidence rather than on jury emotions.

SCR 173

Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 173 prohibits lawyers from expressing personal opinions about the justness of a case, the credibility of a witness, or the culpability of a litigant. This rule is foundational to maintaining impartiality in the courtroom, ensuring that a lawyer’s personal beliefs do not improperly influence the jury’s decision-making process.

Exceptional Interpretation

NRCP 59(a)(2)

In exceptional cases, NRCP 59(a)(2) can be applied even without an objection during the trial if the misconduct is so egregious that it constitutes “plain error.” This means that, even if no one pointed out the misconduct at the time, the error was so significant that it compromised the trial’s integrity and fairness.

NRCP 59(a)(6)

For NRCP 59(a)(6), an exceptional interpretation might occur when the misconduct is directly tied to the excessive damages. If the jury’s passion or prejudice is clearly traced back to inappropriate conduct during the trial, this rule can apply, even if the damages might otherwise seem justified by some evidence.

SCR 173

SCR 173 is applied in an exceptional manner when misconduct is pervasive and egregious enough to have likely influenced the entire proceeding. In such cases, the court may intervene even if no objections were raised, recognizing that the misconduct compromised the basic fairness required in legal proceedings.

Applied Interpretation

In this case, the court applied a principled interpretation of NRCP 59(a)(2) and NRCP 59(a)(6), determining that the misconduct by the plaintiff’s attorney was so pervasive that it tainted the proceedings. The court found that the attorney’s actions led to an award influenced by passion and prejudice rather than evidence. SCR 173 was also applied under a principled interpretation, as the attorney’s personal opinions and emotional appeals violated the rule’s intent to maintain impartiality and objectivity in the courtroom. The court’s decision to grant a new trial reflects a commitment to these principles, emphasizing the need for a fair and unbiased judicial process.

Attorney Misconduct Resolution

Case No. 30158 Resolution Method

In Case No. 30158, the resolution involved reversing the district court’s judgment due to the attorney’s misconduct, which significantly influenced the jury’s decision. This case illustrates that pursuing a legal battle was not the correct approach for the defendant, given the pervasive improper conduct by the plaintiff’s attorney that tainted the proceedings. The defendant could have benefited from seeking a settlement or mediation to mitigate damages earlier in the process. Engaging a seasoned attorney to counteract the emotional appeals and misconduct might have also altered the outcome. Unfortunately, the lack of objections to the misconduct during trial limited the defense’s ability to argue against it effectively on appeal.

Similar Case Resolution Methods

Minor Misconduct by Attorney

In cases where attorney misconduct is minor and does not permeate the trial, pursuing a full trial might still be worthwhile if you have a strong case. However, if the misconduct is likely to sway the jury, consider addressing the issue immediately through objections, ensuring the trial remains fair. If you’re unsure, consulting with a legal expert can help gauge the impact and decide the best course of action.

No Objection to Misconduct

If you find yourself in a situation where attorney misconduct occurs but no objections are raised, it’s crucial to document the incidents thoroughly. While it may be challenging to address this on appeal, raising the issue with the trial judge or seeking a mistrial could provide an immediate remedy. In future cases, it’s wise to have a vigilant legal team ready to object to preserve your rights.

Jury Influenced by External Factors

When you suspect a jury might be influenced by external factors, such as media coverage or public sentiment, it’s essential to request a change of venue or a sequestered jury. If the trial has already concluded, gathering evidence of such influence can support an appeal or a motion for a new trial. Consulting with a legal expert can help identify and act on these concerns efficiently.

Excessive Damages Awarded

In scenarios where a jury awards damages far exceeding what evidence supports, it’s imperative to file a motion for a new trial or a remittitur to reduce the award. This approach can be beneficial if the damages awarded are clearly a result of passion or prejudice. Engaging an experienced attorney to argue for a realistic assessment of damages can prevent an inflated judgment from standing.

FAQ

What is NRCP 59

NRCP 59 refers to the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 59, which allows parties to request a new trial based on specific grounds such as errors during the trial or excessive damages influenced by passion or prejudice.

What is SCR 173

SCR 173 is a rule under the Supreme Court Rules concerning attorney conduct. It prohibits lawyers from stating personal opinions about the justness of a cause or the credibility of witnesses during legal proceedings.

What is Attorney Misconduct

Attorney misconduct involves inappropriate or unethical behavior by a lawyer, such as making prejudicial statements or violating professional conduct rules, which can improperly influence a jury or trial outcome.

When is a New Trial Granted

A new trial may be granted when there is evidence of misconduct, errors affecting the trial’s fairness, or when damages are deemed excessive due to passion or prejudice, as determined by the court’s discretion.

What are Excessive Damages

Excessive damages refer to monetary awards in a lawsuit that exceed what is considered reasonable or supported by evidence, often influenced by jury bias or improper arguments by attorneys.

How to Object to Misconduct

To object to misconduct during a trial, an attorney must timely raise an objection to the court, specifying the improper conduct and requesting an appropriate remedy, such as an admonishment or a motion for a mistrial.

What is a Jury’s Role

A jury’s role is to impartially evaluate the evidence presented during a trial and render a verdict based on the facts, free from external influences such as attorney misconduct or emotional appeals.

What is a Golden Rule Argument

A golden rule argument improperly asks jurors to put themselves in the plaintiff’s or victim’s position, which can bias their judgment and is considered misconduct in a trial setting.

What is Road Rage

Road rage refers to aggressive or violent behavior exhibited by a driver in response to traffic incidents, which can lead to dangerous situations or accidents, as exemplified in the case of DEJESUS v. FLICK.

How to Calculate Damages

Calculating damages involves assessing the extent of harm or loss suffered by a plaintiff, considering factors like medical expenses, lost income, and pain and suffering, supported by evidence presented during the trial.

Scared of late-night assaults in Nevada? Read this first