Opinion ID: 148835
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: References to a Prior Proceeding and Vouching

Text: Martínez next argues that defense counsel prejudiced the jury by essentially revealing that Cui had been previously cleared of misconduct. The district court suppressed references to the DALA proceedings and the Board's decision not to discipline Cui. But it allowed counsel to refer to a prior proceeding when appropriate. At trial defense counsel nevertheless elicited, without objection from Martínez, that Cui had not lost his license. As we understand her brief, Martínez argues that the combination of references to a prior proceeding and evidence that Cui was still licensed told the jury exactly what the court had excluded: that a prior proceeding had cleared Cui of misconduct. Because she did not object at trial to evidence of Cui's license status, Martínez must show the district court committed plain error by admitting this evidence, which she cannot. See United States v. Torres-Oliveras, 583 F.3d 37, 41 (1st Cir. 2009). The court's limiting instructions further ensured this evidence did not affect Martínez's substantial rights or undermine the fairness of the judicial process. See id. During trial the district court cautioned the jury that there were a number of pretrial proceedings in this case ... where witnesses made statements.... The nature of the proceedings is not important. The issue is ... whether a statement was made. And the jury instructions told the jury to base its verdict only on the testimony it had heard in that trial. To the extent Martínez tries to avoid her failure to object by arguing, on appeal, that references to a prior proceeding were inappropriate (an argument she has preserved), this claim is meritless. The court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that allowing counsel to mention a prior proceeding was a sensible, neutral way for counsel to refer to the DALA proceedings when appropriate, such as to impeach witnesses, without telling the jury what happened. Martínez additionally argues the defense prejudiced the jury by vouching for Dr. Cui in opening statement [6] when counsel told the jury, [Cui] is here in your community. He is at your service, and I'm proud to represent him. We bypass whether Martínez waived this objection. In civil cases, to evaluate allegedly improper conduct by counsel, we examine the totality of the circumstances. P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Constructora Lluch, Inc., 169 F.3d 68, 82 (1st Cir.1999). We consider the nature of the comments, their frequency, their possible relevancy to the real issues before the jury, the manner in which the parties treated the comments, the strength of the case, and the verdict itself. Id. And we only reverse upon a showing of prejudice. Id. There was more than adequate basis for the jury to reject Martínez's version of events. despite this comment.