Opinion ID: 435249
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: unfair trial

Text: 62 Stinnes raises numerous points of error concerning the conduct of the trial. Only one merits discussion. During the trial, opposing counsel made various references to Stinnes's German ownership, and contrasted South Hampton's and the jurors' local roots with Stinnes's German and New York ties. Although Stinnes has now prevailed in its appeal against South Hampton, our disposition of United's hold-harmless claim keeps this issue from becoming moot. 63 Although counsel's arguments to the jury contained irrelevant and potentially prejudicial comments, the trial court's refusal to grant a new trial was not an abuse of discretion under the particular circumstances we now review. 32 We apply this standard because the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate the impact on the jury of the attorney's conduct, and to determine the most effective response to ensure a fair trial. 33 64 The objectionable comments by United's attorney did appeal blatantly to ethnic and regional prejudices. 34 But the court cautioned the jury to disregard remarks concerning Stinnes's corporate status as well as its foreign parentage; and under the facts of this case, we conclude that the warning was sufficient to smother the inflammatory effect of these comments. 35 Such remarks are, however, not only improper but reflect disregard by counsel of his duty to the court and to the adversary system which supposes a fair contest, not under-handed blows.