Court Opinion

ID: 9512317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:13:15.556465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:21.404387
License: Public Domain

CHIEF JUSTICE McGRATH,
specially concurring.
¶52 I concur in the result reached by the Court. The refusal of the District Court to remove the disputed jurors for cause warrants reversal and a new trial.
¶53 However, I disagree with the Court’s conclusions regarding defense counsel’s statements in closing argument. The comments did not deny plaintiff a fair trial when considered in the context of the entire argument. The District Court correctly noted that counsel’s remarks were an “invited response to Cooper’s closing argument” and an appropriate reply. Nor was the “black mark” comment sufficiently improper or prejudicial within the context of the proceeding. That statement by defense counsel is different in character and degree from those in Kuhnke, the opinion cited by the majority where the remarks of counsel in closing caused the trial judge to describe them as terribly disturbing. Kuhnke, 210 Mont. at 125, 683 P.2d at 922.
¶54 The jurors were admonished by the court that statements by the attorneys are not evidence. Juries are certainly capable of parsing argument from evidence and, thus, attorneys are generally given some latitude in closing argument.
¶55 I do not join with the Court’s opinion regarding cumulative prejudice.