Opinion ID: 196032
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prejudicial Remarks

Text: 25 Appellants allege that certain statements made by counsel for appellee during closing argument were unfairly prejudicial and deprived appellants of a fair trial. Appellants point to the following statements by counsel for appellee: 1) counsel described Rockett as a con artist, and the breach of contract as a con; 2) counsel referred to Winter as the little fishermen's Co-op in Maine and stated that we don't need anymore of this here in Maine; 3) and counsel stated that Rockett makes more money in one deal than the Co-op makes in a couple of years. Appellants did not object during or after appellee's closing argument, therefore, we review only for plain error. United States v. Rodriguez-Estrada, 877 F.2d 153, 158 (1st Cir. 1989); Wildman v. Lerner Stores Corp., 771 F.2d 605, 609 (1st Cir. 1985) (Counsel cannot play a waiting game and after an adverse verdict is rendered raise an objection to argument for the first time.) (citations omitted). 26 We find no plain error in counsel's remarks. The description of Rockett as a con artist is not unduly prejudicial since the complaint charged him with fraud. Moreover, the jury determined that Rockett did not defraud Winter, and, thus, presumably rejected counsel's characterization of Rockett as a con artist and the breach as a con. None of the other statements by counsel were such that a new trial is required to prevent a miscarriage of justice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 61; Wildman, 771 F.2d at 609.