TRACIE TURNER JACKSON, ET AL., APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
ALEJANDRO J. PENA, M.D. ET AL., APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Jacksons appealed a jury verdict in a medical malpractice case, raising issues about defense counsel's repeated use of improper terminology ('guilty' and 'innocent') when discussing the standard of care, despite trial court instructions. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that while counsel's misconduct was improper, it did not rise to reversible error.
Reversal is not required. Although the trial court should have enforced its directives more stringently, counsel's misconduct was not so pervasive and egregious as to prejudice the jury's ability to fairly assess the evidence, particularly because the trial court corrected counsel in the jury's presence, gave curative instructions, and properly instructed the jury on the burden of proof.
[1] A trial court's instructions to counsel regarding the use of specific terms when questioning witnesses or addressing the jury must be followed.
[2] Counsel's repeated disregard of a trial court's clear instructions, even after correction in the jury's presence, may not warrant reversal if the misconduct is unlikely t…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is highly unlikely that Mr. Hurt's comments affected the jury verdict, particularly given that the trial court corrected Mr. Hurt in the jury's presence, gave timely curative instructions to the jury and properly instructed the jury on the burden of proof at the conclusion of the case.”
The court's reasoning for why harmless error doctrine applied despite counsel's repeated misconduct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Jacksons were plaintiffs in a medical malpractice case against Dr. Alejandro J. Pena and others. The trial court instructed defense counsel not to…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rules Of Professional Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
The Jacksons, plaintiffs below, appeal from a final judgment entered in accordance with the jury’s verdict. We affirm as to all issues raised on appeal and cross-appeal and write only to discuss the apparent unwillingness or inability of defense counsel, Jennings L. Hurt, III, to comply with fairly simple instructions from the trial court not to use the terms “guilty” or “innocent” when questioning witnesses or addressing the jury with regard to the issue of the defendants’ standard of care. The record reflects that Mr. Hurt repeatedly disregarded the trial judge’s instructions even after the judge corrected him, on more than one occasion, in the presence of the jury. While we agree with *304the Jacksons that the trial court should have done more to enforce its directives,1 we conclude that reversal is not required. It is highly unlikely that Mr. Hurt’s comments affected the jury verdict, particularly given that the trial court corrected Mr. Hurt in the jury’s presence, gave timely curative instructions to the jury and properly instructed the jury on the burden of proof at the conclusion of the case. See, e.g., Bradley v. S. Baptist Hosp. of Fla., Inc., 943 So.2d 202, 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (trial court does not abuse discretion in denying motion for new trial where counsel’s alleged misconduct not so pervasive and egregious as to prejudice jury’s ability to fairly assess evidence). We remind counsel that although an attorney’s misconduct may not rise to the level of reversible error, it should be eliminated because it lowers the professional reputation of the Bar and brings disrepute to our judicial system. Eichelkraut v. Kash N’ Karry Food Stores, Inc., 644 So.2d 90, 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), disapproved on other grounds, Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Systems, Inc., 766 So.2d 1010 (Fla.2000).
AFFIRMED.
MONACO, C.J, EVANDER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adams v. Barkman, 114 So. 3d 1021 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…o make improper arguments and violate orders of the court. In the last two years, this court has admonished other lawyers regarding such conduct on at least three occasions. See Irizarry v. Moore, 84 So. 3d 1069 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Jackson v. Pena, 58 So. 3d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Samuels v. Torres, 29 So. 3d 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). While it is suggested that these cases should be tried on the merits and not attorney shenanigans, the threat of an admonishment and a new trial appears to be of no avail. B…
Authorities Cited
- Murphy v. Int'l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000)
- Murad Rashid Muhammad v. Toys "R" US, Inc., 668 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Eichelkraut v. Kash N' Karry Food Stores, Inc., 644 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Bradley v. S. Baptist Hosp. OF Fla., Inc., 943 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)