Opinion ID: 808144
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statements 2 through 5

Text: Williams did not contemporaneously object to Statements 2 through 5, so our review is for plain error. See Whitehead v. Food Max of Miss., Inc., 163 F.3d 265, 276 (5th Cir. 1998). “To demonstrate reversible plain error, the Appellant must show that (1) there is error; (2) it is plain; and (3) it affected his substantial rights.” United 6 Case: 11-30904 Document: 00511978790 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 No. 11-30904 States v. Morin, 627 F.3d 985, 994 (5th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “As a general rule, [a plain] error affects a defendant’s substantial rights only if the error was prejudicial. . . . An error is prejudicial if there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceedings would have been different but for the error.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As noted above, we do not applaud all of counsel’s word choices. However, counsel’s statements were sufficiently based on the record and more than tangentially related to Williams’s claims. See Alaniz, 591 F.3d at 779. Specifically, Williams and his witnesses presented evidence that Williams and one of his witnesses had changed their accounts multiple times, that Williams had been upset with the first suit Schwartz filed, and that Schwartz had arranged for Williams to visit out-of-state doctors for evaluation. Williams also argues C&E counsel’s arguments about “special” men in Statement 5 was particularly prejudicial before a New Orleans jury because there is a local television personality known as the “Special Man,” who helps people with low or no credit obtain loans. C&E disputes Williams’s characterization of the televised “Special Man” as “disreputable[,] offensive[, and] sleazy.” Williams provides no evidence to support his assertion that the jury connected C&E counsel’s statements with the television “Special Man.” Nor does he provide any case law with analogous fact patterns. Because the trial transcript provides no information about C&E counsel’s tone, inflection, or body language when he made the comments, this is a prime illustration of why a New Orleans-based “trial judge is in a far better position than an appellate court to evaluate the prejudice flowing from counsel’s improper remarks . . . .” Mills, 886 F.2d at 765. “Special man” is a common-enough phrase that its mere use does not demonstrate C&E counsel attempted to improperly prejudice the jury. 7 Case: 11-30904 Document: 00511978790 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 No. 11-30904 In light of the evidence presented at trial and the trial court’s instructions to the jury discussed above, we cannot say that “manifest injustice” has occurred. See Alaniz, 591 F.3d at 779.