{"id":5209,"date":"2007-06-20T10:10:20","date_gmt":"2007-06-20T17:10:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aitkenlaw.com\/news\/?p=62"},"modified":"2007-06-20T10:10:20","modified_gmt":"2007-06-20T17:10:20","slug":"use-of-evidence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aitkenlaw.com\/newsite\/2007\/06\/20\/use-of-evidence\/","title":{"rendered":"The Use of Evidence in Opening Statement and Closing Argument"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Presented by:<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;The Honorable C. Robert Jameson, Orange County Superior Court<\/p>\n<p><em>&nbsp;Richard A. Cohn, Aitken Aitken &amp; Cohn<\/em><\/p>\n<h2>I.&nbsp;Fundamentals\/Legal Principles<\/h2>\n<h2>A.&nbsp;Opening Statement<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>C.C.P. \u00a7607(1) \u2014 When the jury has been sworn unless the court, for special reasons, otherwise directs: (1) The plaintiff may state the issue and his case; (2) The defendant may then state his defense if he wishes or wait until after the plaintiff has produced his evidence.<\/li>\n<li>A statement made against one\u2019s clients\u2019 interest can be taken as an admission.&nbsp; Miller v., Johnston (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 289.<\/li>\n<li>A very limited discussion of applicable law is allowable when necessary to provide jury with an understanding of the case (e.,g. violation of statute is alleged).&nbsp; DeArmas v. Dickerman (1952) 108 Cal.App.2d 548.<\/li>\n<li>C.C.P. \u00a7581c(a) authorizes nonsuit motion where one fails to cover all elements of asserted cause of action in opening statement.&nbsp; (However, caselaw allows counsel to &#8220;re-open&#8221;? to correct such errors.)&nbsp; (See e.g. John Norton Farms v. Todabco (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 149.)<\/li>\n<li>Time limits within sound discretion of trial judge.&nbsp; (Such limits are normally prearranged in discussions with judge pre-trial.)<\/li>\n<li>Opening statement is not evidence.<\/li>\n<li>Opening Statement should not be used to &#8220;argue&#8221;? case to the jury.&nbsp; (A very &#8220;gray&#8221;? area)<\/li>\n<li>Exclusion of witnesses in discretion of the trial court California Evidence Code \u00a7777(a); C.C.P. \u00a7128(a)(3).<\/li>\n<li>Transcript of opposing counsel\u2019s opening can\/should often be ordered to examine in detail (and later expose unfulfilled promises).<\/li>\n<li>In multiparty cases, the order of who will present opening statements is in the discretion of the court (if the parties cannot agree).&nbsp; C.C.P. \u00a7607(B).&nbsp; Co-defendants should consider having one defendant &#8220;reserve&#8221;? argument until after plaintiff\u2019s case is complete.<\/li>\n<li>Improper Conduct During Opening<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Discussing excluded matters<\/li>\n<li>Statements made without &#8220;good faith&#8221;? belief<\/li>\n<li>Argument<\/li>\n<li>Discussing applicable law (with limited exceptions)<\/li>\n<li>Statements of personal belief or opinion<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>In the event of misconduct by opposing counsel, timely objection and request for jury admonishment is required (to avoid waiver of claim of prejudice on appeal).&nbsp; See, Brokopp v. Ford Motor Co. (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 841, 861.&nbsp; In extreme cases, request for mistrial is appropriate.<\/li>\n<li>Use of Demonstrative Evidence is generally accepted under California law where it will aid the jury in following the evidence, and to discern its materiality, force and effect.&nbsp; People v. Green (1956) 47 Cal.2d 209.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Items that will be received into evidence may be used in opening.<\/li>\n<li>Even items not independently admissible (i.e. a map or sketch) can be used if they will fairly serve a proper purpose.&nbsp; (Id.)&nbsp; See also, People v. Fauber (1992) 2 Cal.4th 792; People v. Kirk (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 921, 929; Gibson v. State (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 458.<\/li>\n<li>Beware of Local Rules limiting use of demonstrative evidence in opening statement without prior approval of the court.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>B.&nbsp;Closing Argument<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Wide latitude is granted.<\/li>\n<li>Argument re: how the law applies to the facts of the case allows for use of all of the following:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Blow-ups of Jury Instructions<\/li>\n<li>Blow-up of Verdict Form<\/li>\n<li>Exhibits designed to recap the evidence (and argue the case).<\/li>\n<li>Any exhibits referred to during trial<\/li>\n<li>Deposition and\/or trial transcripts<\/li>\n<li>Testimony &#8220;Highlights&#8221;? charts<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Scope of Permissible Argument:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Inferences v. unsupported inferences<\/li>\n<li>Counsel\u2019s view of disputed facts \u2014 permissible; (but opinion that witness is liar is improper)<\/li>\n<li>Discussion of applicable law is permissible (especially jury instructions)<\/li>\n<li>Improper to argue re: excluded evidence, matters not in evidence, misstatements of evidence or law.<\/li>\n<li>Improper to appeal to &#8220;passion\/prejudice&#8221;?<\/li>\n<li>Improper to refer to exercise of privilege<\/li>\n<li>Improper to argue counsel\u2019s personal knowledge of facts<\/li>\n<li>Okay to refer to common knowledge<\/li>\n<li>Golden Rule = improper<\/li>\n<li>Juror\u2019s self interest = improper (i.e. cost to taxpayers).<\/li>\n<li>Referring to jurors by name = improper<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Lack of timely objection yields waiver; Must object and request jury admonition<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>II.&nbsp;Types Of Demonstrative Evidence<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Chronology\/Timeline<\/li>\n<li>Videotape<\/li>\n<li>Audiotape<\/li>\n<li>Charts and graphs<\/li>\n<li>Medical records<\/li>\n<li>Medical Illustrations<\/li>\n<li>Models of human anatomy<\/li>\n<li>Maps<\/li>\n<li>Exemplar products\/devices<\/li>\n<li>Xrays\/CT-Scans\/MRI films, etc. . .&nbsp; (positive)<\/li>\n<li>Documents (blown up)<\/li>\n<li>Diagrams of scene and party\/witness locations<\/li>\n<li>Video\/Computer generated re-creation and simulation<\/li>\n<li>Photographs of scene, vehicles, injuries<\/li>\n<li>Injury Diagrams<\/li>\n<li>Sequence of events diagrams<\/li>\n<li>Family photos and video<\/li>\n<li>&#8220;Day in the Life&#8221;? films<\/li>\n<li>Plaintiff\u2019s diplomas, certificates, achievements<\/li>\n<li>&#8220;Scales of Justice&#8221;? chart summarizing\/weighing evidence<\/li>\n<li>Economic damages summary chart<\/li>\n<li>Medical bills summary chart<\/li>\n<li>Police\/Fire\/Paramedic\/Coroner\/Other investigative reports<\/li>\n<li>Witness statements<\/li>\n<li>Land Survey charts<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.aitkenlaw.com\/contact\/\" target=\"_self\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Contact<\/a> Aitken * Aitken * Cohn today to learn more.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Presented by: &nbsp;The Honorable C. Robert Jameson, Orange County Superior Court &nbsp;Richard A. Cohn, Aitken Aitken &amp; Cohn I.&nbsp;Fundamentals\/Legal Principles A.&nbsp;Opening Statement C.C.P. \u00a7607(1) \u2014 When the jury has been sworn unless the court, for special reasons, otherwise directs: (1) The plaintiff may state the issue and his case; (2) The defendant may then state&#8230; <a class=\"read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/www.aitkenlaw.com\/newsite\/2007\/06\/20\/use-of-evidence\/\">read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[342],"class_list":["post-5209","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles","tag-evidence"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aitkenlaw.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5209","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aitkenlaw.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aitkenlaw.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aitkenlaw.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aitkenlaw.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5209"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.aitkenlaw.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5209\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aitkenlaw.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5209"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aitkenlaw.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5209"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aitkenlaw.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5209"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}