Improper PowerPoint presentation results in a $300,000 verdict being thrown out
The Appellate Division recently overturned a $300,000 jury award in a personal injury lawsuit due to the plaintiff’s attorney’s misuse of a PowerPoint presentation during his closing argument. In this matter, Anthony Romano filed a lawsuit against Michael Stubbs in connection with an altercation that occurred in the Bergen County Courthouse on February 23, 2006.
On that date, Stubbs was in court for a hearing regarding a domestic violence complaint filed by his wife and a determination as to whether a temporary restraining order should become permanent. While in court, an officer approached Stubbs and told him that a warrant had been issued for his arrest on the same day as the temporary restraining order. Romano, who was an officer in the courtroom, helped arrest Romano after he resisted arrest. During the altercation, Stubbs fell on top of Romano and forced Stubb’s elbow to the ground. Stubbs eventually pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct for this altercation.
Romano alleged that as a result of this incident he sustained an injury to the ulnar nerve in his elbow that required surgery. In addition, Romano claimed that he injured his neck and warranted a spinal fusion. Romano, in turn, filed a negligence lawsuit against Stubbs.
At issue in this case was plaintiff’s counsel’s use of a PowerPoint presentation during his closing argument. During the recess between defense counsel’s closing argument and the start of plaintiff’s counsel’s closing argument, it was revealed for the first time that plaintiff intended to use a PowerPoint presentation during closing. Defense counsel objected to plaintiff’s counsel using the PowerPoint presentation at the time. The trial judge allowed the use of the PowerPoint presentation and concluded that the plaintiff’s attorney would not project anything he did not say in his argument.
During his closing argument, the plaintiff’s attorney used the PowerPoint presentation to support his argument that Stubbs’ decision to proceed to trial reflected bad character and his refusal to accept responsibility for the incident. In addition, the plaintiff’s attorney argued that Stubbs and his attorney were acting in concert to frame Romano. Additionally, during the presentation, the plaintiff’s attorney projected words indicating that Stubbs was a felon, had a propensity for violence, and that the jury needed to “send a message.” Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict of $300,000 to compensate Romano for his injuries.
In reviewing this matter, the Appellate Division noted that, in general, closing arguments based on the evidence are permissible, but arguments that “change the jury’s focus from a fair evaluation of the evidence to following a course designed to inflame the jury by repeatedly appealing to inappropriate and irrelevant considerations are not.” The Court recognized that while “the lawyer has a wide latitude to passionately defend his clients’ cases in short, there are some clear limits”.
Taken as a whole, the Court found that plaintiff’s counsel had made inadequate arguments through the use of his PowerPoint presentation. The Court found that arguing and projecting words that: (1) the jury needed to send a message; (2) Stubbs was a violent person; (3) Stubbs was a criminal; (4) Stubbs’ decision to go to trial was evidence of misconduct; and (5) Stubbs and his attorney were “working” to blame Romano, constituted improper arguments. As such, the Court concluded that “the cumulative impact of multiple violations on Plaintiff’s closing argument leaves us with no confidence in the fairness of the damages awarded.”
Consequently, the damages award was annulled and the matter was remanded to the court of first instance for a new trial for damages.