Opinion ID: 603911
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidentiary and Trial Process Errors

Text: 16 The LeFlore District complains the court abused its discretion by refusing to permit two of its experts to testify, prohibiting the introduction of exhibits not listed on the pretrial order, and sustaining objections to its cross-examination of Ms. Durant about why she did not personally attend the June 26 board meeting. These evidentiary errors occurred, the LeFlore District maintains, in an atmosphere of abuse and hostility which the trial court displayed with razor sharp comments and devastating consequences. 17 Virtually each page of trial transcript is riddled with objections interposed to testimony, interchanges with the court, repetitions of the permitted or prohibited lines of questioning, and a general abandonment of the appropriate adversarial roles in the trial process. Repeatedly, the court reminded counsel not to ask leading questions on direct examination; and, consistently, counsel on both sides led their witnesses, responded inappropriately to testimony, 8 and commented on witness testimony. 9 Rancor and contentiousness pervade the trial process with each side's ignoring the court's rulings in an attempt to evade their consequences. 18 Within this setting, the LeFlore District objected to certain evidentiary rulings which it continues to press in this appeal hoping to show an abuse of discretion. Each of its objections is without merit, however. For example, the court's pretrial instructions and order require counsel to list those exhibits expected to be introduced at trial. The LeFlore District did not list the school policy manual as one of its exhibits and failed to show any other circumstance than its own neglect to warrant relief from the pretrial order. 10 The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the exhibit. 19 Similarly, the court properly excluded the testimony of two attorneys whom the LeFlore District sought to offer as expert witnesses. Again the court entertained defense counsel's proffer the testimony was being offered to show the LeFlore District sought the advice of counsel with regard to whether or not it was proper for Mrs. Durant's contract to be nonrenewed. Appendix to Appellants' Brief-in-Chief, V. II, 464. The court responded the proffered testimony was already in the evidence and undisputed. We agree and find no abuse of discretion in this court's ruling. 20 Finally, defense counsel challenges the court's sustaining plaintiff counsel's objection to its questioning Ms. Durant about why she did not attend the June 26 meeting. Although the court initially ruled the issue was irrelevant, it later reconsidered and permitted counsel to ask Ms. Durant why she didn't attend the board meeting but not whether it would have made a difference had she attended. 11 Counsel's pressing this objection on appeal merely underscores the spurious nature of the trial tactics which prolonged this case. 21 Here, the record speaks for itself. The trial court properly exercised its discretion in controlling this contentious proceeding.