Opinion ID: 2103552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiffs' Counsel's Closing Arguments

Text: Defendants next argue that plaintiffs' counsel's remarks during closing arguments exacerbated the prejudicial effect of the trial court's error in allowing a missing-witness instruction. Defendants believe the remarks were so prejudicial as to constitute reversible error in themselves. During closing argument, plaintiffs' counsel stated: The most glaring evidence of [Dr. Cibil's] negligence is what you didn't hear in this case. You didn't hear from any of the doctors from the University of Chicago who worked side by side with him on this case. You didn't hear from those people he named as being on duty that day. You didn't hear from those people whose names appear over and over in the hospital chart, his co-workers at the University of Chicago, his brothers and sisters in this close knit fraternity of doctors. You didn't hear any of them come forward, take the witness stand, swear to tell the truth and tell you what happened that day, and he told you how many other doctors were involved in this case. That was Dr. Hibbard, there was Dr. Smallwood, there was Dr. Anderson, there was Dr. Blanks, there was Dr. Michelletti.       The reason that you can infer that none of these people came in to testify was that they couldn't say anything to back [Dr. Cibils] up. If they could, you would have to have tickets out here to keep them in line from coming in here, taking the oath and telling you that their boss, the doctor did the right thing.    But you didn't hear from one of them and it's an insult to you that the only other doctor that you did hear from was Dr. Meadows, who had nothing to do with what was going on in labor and delivery.    Don't you want to hear, aren't you entitled to hear from the people who were there, from the people who actually participated in the delivery, the people who from 11:00 o'clock on administered to and cared for Jennifer Simmons? People like Gail Dennis, the nurse who was with her all day?    When your own people won't stand behind you and testify in your behalf, then you know you're wrong. While defendants now object to this closing argument, they did not object at trial. Nor did defendants ask the court for a curative instruction. The appellate court found the issue waived, and we agree. Failure to object to allegedly prejudicial remarks during closing argument generally waives the issue for review. ( Belfield v. Coop (1956), 8 Ill.2d 293, 311-12, 134 N.E.2d 249.) However, there exists an exception to this rule: If prejudicial arguments are made without objection of counsel or interference of the trial court to the extent that the parties litigant cannot receive a fair trial and the judicial process stand without deterioration, then upon review this court may consider such assignments of error, even though no objection was made and no ruling made or preserved thereon. ( Belfield, 8 Ill.2d at 313, 134 N.E.2d 249.) This standard has been applied in cases involving blatant mischaracterizations of fact, character assassination, or base appeals to emotion and prejudice. Gillespie v. Chrysler Motors Corp. (1990), 135 Ill.2d 363, 377, 142 Ill.Dec. 777, 553 N.E.2d 291. We find that plaintiffs' counsel's remarks did not deny defendants a fair trial or result in the deterioration of the judicial process. We further agree with the appellate court that an objection and instruction by the trial court would have cured any alleged error. Upon objection, the trial court could have instructed the jury that it was not permitted to draw any adverse inferences from defendants' failure to call certain witnesses because those witnesses were no longer under defendants' control. Moreover, as the appellate court noted, the court could have also instructed the jury that since plaintiffs did not call the witnesses either, no adverse inferences could be drawn against plaintiffs. If this were done, any prejudice the jury might have had would have been applicable to both parties for their failure to call the witnesses. Defendants could also have sought a sidebar and requested the judge to so instruct the jury. Because defendants failed to do these things, the issue has been waived. Defendants should not benefit by their failure to object or request a sidebar and wait for a jury verdict, only to raise this issue in a post-trial motion and on appeal in hopes of a new trial.