Opinion ID: 610638
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant's Closing Argument

Text: 56 The plaintiffs' final assignment of error relates to Medivac's closing argument. In their opening brief, the plaintiffs argue that defense counsel's closing argument was improperly based on material which was neither in evidence nor fairly inferrable from facts in evidence. In response, the defendants contend that the plaintiffs waived this argument by failing to object at trial, and citing Deppe v. Tripp, 863 F.2d 1356 (7th Cir.1988). 57 To the extent that the plaintiffs are truly claiming that defense counsel's closing was improper because he argued outside the evidence and its fair inferences, this argument is waived. Deppe requires a party to object to alleged errors either during closing argument or before the case is submitted to the jury. Id. at 1356. The plaintiffs did neither. 58 However, a closer inspection of the plaintiffs' argument suggests that their real complaint is one we have already addressed: the propriety of Smith's impeachment. The facts not in evidence to which the plaintiffs object are (1) that Smith did not testify during their case-in-chief and (2) that Smith's Rule 26 statements were seemingly inconsistent. The inference to which the plaintiffs object is that Smith was less than genuine and forthcoming. These complaints were the very ones the plaintiffs asserted in their improper impeachment argument--a point they stress in their reply brief in an attempt to avoid the defendants' waiver defense. 59 The plaintiffs preserved their objection to the impeachment during trial, as we noted earlier. However, we have already held that Smith's impeachment was permissible. Consequently, defense counsel was free to argue these facts in his closing because they constituted properly admitted evidence. Furthermore, it was proper for defense counsel to argue the inference that Smith's credibility was questionable in light of these facts.