“[W]e see no harm in allowing [counsel] to use a cultural reference as shorthand [in closing argument] . . .
to make the point that, in [counsel’s] opinion, [plaintiff’s] damages methodology was likely to render this jury’s verdict excessive.” Boyle v. Christensen, 2009 UT App 241. The Court makes it clear you should feel free to refer to iconic events or cases to assist your argument. Here, counsel referred to the “McDonald’s” excessive verdict to sway the jury to see this plaintiff’s claims as excessive. Get creative. You have “considerable latitude” in closing arguments just as long as you don’t refer to “material that the jury would not be justified in considering in reaching its verdict.”
- MUJI 2d Will Try to Address the “Google” Mistrial
- Proposed Federal Civil Rule Changes: Rules 26 (experts) and 56 (summary judgment)
- Secure Your Settlement by Putting it in Writing
- Utah Legislature May Materially Alter Medical Malpractice Claims
- Make a Clean Exit From Utah Federal Court