Opinion ID: 878517
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Out of Town Witnesses and Parties

Text: Further comments were made by counsel for Dr. Alvord which were outside the record. He argued: Everybody is going to go home. You understand that Dr. Mattox is already back in New Mexico, Dr. Darvill has gone back to Washington, Mr. Luvera is going to go back to Washington, Mr. Kuhnke is going to, I don't know if it's to Alaska or to Thompson Falls, as he's indicated. Who's going to be left here? Who's going to be left here in this community? Well, I am, Dr. Alvord is, he's going to continue practicing medicine in this community as he has since he came to Bozeman as an internal medicine specialist. In Pederson v. Dumouchel (1967), 72 Wash. 73, 431 P.2d 973, the Washington court held that such argument was an appeal to local prejudice and passion and in effect a method to turn the jury into a home-town rooting section. Washington held that a case should be argued upon the facts without an appeal to prejudice and it did not approve of this kind of argument. Nor do we.