Opinion ID: 2075889
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hospital Counsel's Missing Witness Argument

Text: Appellants next contend that the defendant's counsel's commentary during closing argument about the significance of the plaintiffs' failure to call Adam and a variety of care providers who had rendered medical and therapeutic services to him as witnesses irreparably prejudiced them, and that a curative instruction issued the following day was insufficient to purge the taint. We hold that counsel's argument was improper, but that appellants waived any objection to the adequacy of the curative instruction. The trial judge refused the defendants' request to issue standardized failure to produce stronger evidence [5] or missing witness [6] instructions, and expressly forbade defense counsel from arguing that the reason these people were not called was because if they had been called[, defense counsel] would have been able to question them and [] would have been able to show you that their testimony would not have supported the plaintiffs' case. Acceding to this ruling, the hospital's counsel told the court: I don't plan to argue that, of course. That's all speculative and I think that would be inappropriate. Nevertheless, in argument counsel suggested to the jury in essence the very inference the judge had forbidden: that the testimony of the absent witnesses would be unfavorable to the plaintiffs. And you'll see Dr. Michael Dennis, a neurosurgeon, was paid but you haven't heard from Michael Dennis. You'll see that Dr. David McCullough, a neurosurgeon was paid, but you haven't heard from Dr. McCullough. Dr. Miriam Davis is a neurologist ... [T]here are three, six, nine, thirteen or fourteen visits that were made to Dr. Davis ... but you haven't heard from Dr. Miriam Davis. Have you wondered why? You should.       When you get to the jury room and wonder why, ask yourselves why we haven't heard from these people. Where are they? Why can't someone tell us what this nice young boy's condition really is? Why do we have to rely upon innuendo and inference and speculation? Why ... are we asked to rely by the plaintiffs ... upon the testimony of people who have never seen Adam? [Emphasis added.] The unspoken answer to all of counsel's rhetorical questions was that the plaintiffs did not call the absent witnesses because they would not have testified favorably about Adam's injuries. In inviting the jury to supply the answer, counsel went beyond merely not[ing] the absence of the witness, Arnold v. United States, 511 A.2d 399, 416 (D.C.1986), and made in effect a complete missing witness argument, id. at 415-16, contrary to the trial court's prior ruling. Immediately following the defendants' argument, plaintiffs' counsel requested a curative instruction. The court stated its willingness to instruct the jury that they could draw no inferences from any party's failure to call a witness equally available to either side. Plaintiffs' counsel responded, That is fine, and agreed that the instruction could be given as part of the general instructions the next day in view of the late hour. The following day the judge instructed the jury: Either side in this case could have called any witness who had relevant and admissible testimony. For their own reasons the parties chose to call some witnesses and not to call others. You may not draw any inference for or against the plaintiffs, or for or against the defendants based on the failure of any witness to testify for one side or the other, or speculate about what their testimony would have been if they had been called. Appellants made no objection to the instruction and sought no broader relief. We conclude that appellants have waived any objection to the adequacy of the instruction to cure prejudice. Counsel limited his request for remedial measures to an instruction, and expressly approved the instruction the court proposed to give. He likewise acquiesced in the court's decision to postpone all instructions to the following day. In these circumstances, appellants will not be heard to argue that the instruction demanded stronger language or that a mistrial was the only adequate remedy. [7]