Opinion ID: 728966
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: WHETHER McNELY WAIVED HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE VERDICT FORM

Text: 15 The defendants contend that McNely waived his objections to the verdict form because he failed to state his objections to the verdict form after it was read to the jury. We disagree. McNely's counsel raised his objections to the verdict form specifically and directly on two separate occasions. Before the case was submitted to the jury, the court held a jury charge conference. At that conference, McNely's counsel objected to the verdict form on the same bases that he raises on appeal: (1) the inclusion of the term solely in questions five and six, and (2) the limiting use of the word termination in the same questions. McNely's counsel made extensive arguments in support of his request that the verdict form be modified accordingly. The district court stated that it was not inclined to change the form, but would consider the matter overnight. The charge conference was then continued to the next day. 16 When the charge conference was reconvened the next day, the following exchange occurred between the court and McNely's counsel: 17 THE COURT: When we parted yesterday, I told you I didn't think I was going to change this verdict, and I'm not, except for the agreed language change we made on--I forget where it was. Other than that, it is as it was yesterday. 18 MR. O'NEILL: Your Honor, if I may just for the record, I would like to perfect our objections to certain aspects of the verdict form that we raised yesterday; and, in particular, Your Honor, I think probably the major objection we have is the insertion of the words solely because of the alleged disability as that appears in Instruction 5 and Instruction 6 on the verdict form, Your Honor. 19 Thereafter, McNely's counsel provided the court with argument and citations of authority in support of his objections, including his objection to the limiting use of the word termination in questions five and six. Once again, the district court denied counsel's request to modify the verdict form. 20 After closing arguments, the district court delivered its instructions to the jury, including instructions about completion of the verdict form. The district court then gave counsel the opportunity to raise any new objections, but specifically stated: [A]ll prior motions, all prior objections, both to the instructions or any matters that have taken place in the trial, all motions will be considered raised again at this time. All previous rulings will continue to apply. In view of that assurance, McNely's counsel did not raise and reargue the same objections that he had already raised and argued twice, and that the district court had twice overruled. In these circumstances, we hold that McNely's counsel preserved his objections to the verdict form, and we proceed now to the merits of those objections. See Landsman Packing Co. v. Continental Can Co., 864 F.2d 721, 726 (11th Cir.1989).