Opinion ID: 2499159
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trial and Counsel's Conduct

Text: ¶ 10 Judge González made it clear that he expected a high level of formality and decorum during the course of the trial. He laid out detailed instructions regarding objections, including speaking objections on the first day of trial: You will say, objection, rule number, you will cite the rule, or you will give the heading or title of the rule, but you won't make speaking objections during trial. If you need to supplement the record, I will certainly give you the chance later to do so. If you wish to make additional argument, you could ask for that argument, but if I don't invite it at that point, we won't hear any more argument at that time. I Verbatim Report of Proceedings (RP) (Jan. 12, 2009) at 59. The judge also clearly laid out his requirements that counsel must show opposing counsel anything to be shown to a witness or published to the jury, that exhibits must be marked before they could be used to refresh a witness's memory or used for illustrative purposes, and that counsel must ask permission before publishing anything to the jury. ¶ 11 During trial, defense counsel Nancy Elliott continued to make speaking objections after reminders from the trial court of its prohibition. Ms. Elliott also repeatedly attempted to put exhibits before the jury that had not been admitted and to elicit testimony regarding subjects that the court had ruled inadmissible or irrelevant. After one attempt, the trial court threatened to fine Ms. Elliott. Finally, Ms. Elliott told both the court and opposing counsel that Dr. Deck intended to call two witnesses, Ms. Bonnie Ellison and Dr. Lauter. However, Ms. Ellison had been told that she would not be needed, and Dr. Lauter's counsel disclaimed any attempt by Ms. Elliott to schedule Dr. Lauter's testimony. ¶ 12 Eventually, Judge González made a record of his concerns (outside the jury's presence) regarding Ms. Elliott's conduct: Finally, I'd like to make a record about a few things, including my displeasure with some of the conduct in this case. ... There was late disclosure of discovery, including the CD [ (compact disk) ], which I thought was the original CD, but turned out to be an edited version, which was presented after 9:00 p.m. last night to opposing counsel, and I just heard about it on the record in trial. I'm also very concerned about the issues regarding disclosure of witnesses and the timing of notifying opposing counsel and the court, and the accuracy of the representations to the court about the availability of witnesses and which witnesses would be called. ... I'm concerned about the representation from Dr. Lauter's counsel that counsel was unaware that Dr. Lauter was being requested to testify. That is different from the representation made to the court by defense counsel that efforts were being made to procure him. I'm also concerned about attempts to circumvent the court's ruling on admissibility of documents. It certainly appears that way by putting issues before the jury regarding documents in a purported attempt to lay foundation. For disregard for protocol and rules of evidence which are repeatedand this is not the first court in which they have occurredfor continued speaking objections after clear direction from me not to do so, and what can only be described as feigned ignorance when I say that a document must be marked before it's shown to a witness, it certainly doesn't mean it has to be admitted before a witness can refer to it to refresh recollection. It is fairly fundamental and basic how you refresh and when you can refresh a witness's recollection. XRP at 1903-04. After the trial court put these concerns on the record, Ms. Elliott made further attempts to elicit testimony on subjects previously ruled inadmissible.