Opinion ID: 602383
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ford's Closing Argument

Text: 30 Johnson also challenges statements made by Ford in its closing argument. Specifically, Johnson asserts that 31 [t]he trial court tied Plaintiff's hands and let Ford land a fatal blow to Plaintiff's case when, after ruling out evidence of other accidents, it allowed defense counsel to argue that if the Plaintiff had been able to find evidence of a single accident resulting from a halfshaft failure such as the one in question, that we would have presented it. Furthermore, the court refused to instruct the jury that evidence of other accidents had been ruled out of the case. 32 According to Johnson, Ford violated its own motion in limine to exclude Johnson's evidence of other accidents when it made such statements. 33 This court has recognized that the district court is in a far better position than an appellate court to evaluate the prejudice flowing from counsel's improper comments during trial and to determine the most effective response to ensure a fair trial. Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., Inc., 886 F.2d 758, 765 (5th Cir.1989). Even if remarks are deemed improper and a trial judge's response is deemed inadequate, a new trial will not be granted unless, after considering counsel's trial tactics as a whole, the evidence presented, and the ultimate verdict, the court concludes that manifest injustice would result by allowing the verdict to stand. Id. 34 Ford defends the statements at issue by asserting that they were made in response to statements in Johnson's closing argument referring to warranty reports which allude to C.V. joints binding and sticking; according to Ford, these statements were made to diminish Mann's testimony. Specifically, Ford states that its 35 counsel's comments simply responded to Plaintiff's counsel's argument and directed the jury's attention to the fact that, even if they believed Plaintiff's argument that the warranty reports showed that C.V. joints could bind or stick, there was no evidence that this problem ever caused an accident. 36 Moreover, Ford contends that, even if the statements Johnson challenges were improper, they do not justify a new trial for, [a]fter 12 days of trial with hundreds of exhibits admitted into evidence, this single statement by counsel in closing surely could not have affected the final verdict. 37 We conclude that the impropriety of Ford's statements, if any, is offset by the statements by Johnson which prompted them. Moreover, as discussed above (see supra Part II.A.1), the evidence of other lawsuits and claims offered by Johnson did not have enough probative value to survive Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and Johnson never offered admissible evidence of an accident like Darlene's resulting from a halfshaft failure caused by the contamination of an inboard C.V. joint. In short, the alleged prejudicial effect of Ford's statements is minimized by the fact that their accuracy is supported by the record, and we conclude that Johnson has not presented us with a case of manifest injustice. See Mills, 886 F.2d at 765.