Opinion ID: 739296
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cross-examination of Shackelford and Kraft

Text: 69 Defendants further contend that the trial court erred in allowing Lightfoot's counsel to cross-examine Shackelford about Carbide's earnings between 1989 and 1993, and to question Glen Kraft about emissions problems at Carbide's plants in West Virginia and Bhopal, India. Defendants regard these questions as an attempt to portray Carbide as a disreputable corporate citizen with ample financial resources to compensate victims like Lightfoot. They add that the trial judge's participation in the Bhopal questions amounted to tacit approval of that line of questioning. 70 As to the questions about Carbide's income and financial status, defendants never objected to this testimony. Having failed to make a timely objection at trial, defendants are limited to plain error review of the issue. See Fed.R.Evid. 103(a)(1); Berner v. British Commonwealth Pac. Airlines, 346 F.2d 532, 542 (2d Cir.1965) ([C]hallenge [to defendants' closing argument], raised for the first time on the motion for new trial, came too late.). 71 There was no error here, plain or otherwise, since Carbide's opening statement brought up Bhopal and made an issue of Carbide's financial straits: 72 Union Carbide beginning in the mid-1980's was a company that was having serious financial problems. I'm sure most of you know about Bhopal, which cost the company a lot of money. There was a takeover attempt that cost the company a lot of money, and Union Carbide generally had to start reevaluating its business that resulted in the company selling off a lot of businesses that they owned; it resulted in a lot of cost cutting and it resulted in a lot of reductions in force to a lot of people. 73 The cross-examination of Shackelford simply explored the basis for that opening statement. During plaintiff's cross-examination of defendants' witness, Glen Kraft, the Bhopal tragedy was raised and questions were asked about poisonous emissions and their cause. The court interjected with three or four questions before concluding that the entire subject matter was totally irrelevant in my view, but since I was interested, I asked those questions. 74 The court's comment that the questions were irrelevant was sufficient to alert the jury that it should not take that information into account in deciding the case. There is no error. 75