Court Opinion

ID: 9518616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:57:28.953808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:13.649181
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE RARICK, dissenting: I write this dissent because I believe numerous comments made by plaintiff’s counsel during closing argument, particularly on rebuttal, taken as a whole prevented defendant from receiving a fair trial. Specifically, I find fault with counsel’s adverse characterizations of Dr. Rosenbaum in connection with counsel’s inflammatory personal opinions which served only to arouse the prejudice and passions of the jury. Such comments went far beyond the mere questioning of the judgment and credibility of witnesses. (See Kerns v. Lenox Machine Co. (1979), 74 Ill. App. 3d 194, 198, 392 N.E.2d 688, 691; Regan v. Vizza (1978), 65 Ill. App. 3d 50, 53-54, 382 N.E.2d 409, 411-12; see also Green v. Cook County Hospital (1987), 156 Ill. App. 3d 826, 830-31, 510 N.E.2d 3, 5-6.) Counsel also improperly referred to the jury as the conscience of the community although exemplary damages were not even in issue. Such language urged the jury to decide the case, not on the law and evidence, but in a “punitive manner.” (See Department of Conservation v. Strassheim (1981), 92 Ill. App. 3d 689, 695, 415 N.E.2d 1346, 1352.) And lastly, counsel’s comments pertaining to the size of defense counsel’s firm and its expertise were all irrelevant to the issues at hand serving only to cause additional prejudice. (See Brown v. Arco Petroleum Products Co. (1989), 195 Ill. App. 3d 563, 565-66, 552 N.E.2d 1003, 1006.) I by no means wish to dampen or curtail zealous advocacy, but even zealous advocacy must fall within reasonable bounds of propriety. In my view, plaintiff’s counsel overstepped that boundary in this instance. I further disagree with the majority with respect to the issue of discovery sanctions for failing to produce a copy of the notes Mary Schulte made during plaintiff’s medical examination. Regardless of whether the withholding of the notes was intentional or not, the fact of the matter is that the notes were not disclosed in discovery. I believe Schulte should not have been allowed to testify from these notes. To hold otherwise countenances violation of discovery rules. (See Ferenbach v. DeSyllas (1977), 45 Ill. App. 3d 599, 602-03, 359 N.E.2d 1214,1217.) For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.