Olenin v. Curtin & Johnson, Inc., 21104.
| Decision Date | 27 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 21104.,21104. |
| Citation | 424 F.2d 769 |
| Parties | Alice OLENIN, Appellant, v. CURTIN & JOHNSON, INC., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Messrs. Denver H. Graham, and Albert E. Brault, Washington, D. C., submitted on the brief for appellees.
Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and DANAHER and BURGER, Circuit Judges.
Certiorari Denied April 21, 1969. See 89 S.Ct. 1485.
This appeal arises out of an action for damages for personal injuries occurring when Appellant sustained ankle and leg injuries in a fall.
Appellant urges that the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial motion following allegedly improper comments by defense counsel during voir dire, that the evidence was insufficient to support the court's instruction on contributory negligence, and that prejudicial comments by defense counsel in closing argument necessitated a new trial. Our review of the record satisfies us that there was no error in the instruction and that the impropriety in closing argument was not such as to warrant reversal.
While, on the whole record, counsel's closing argument to the jury does not warrant reversal, it calls for comment. Defense counsel argued that one of plaintiff's witnesses "told a lie, that he committed perjury on the stand * * *." We occasionally have found it necessary to remind counsel of the elementary rule, stated in the Canons of Ethics and interpretative opinions1 which forbids an advocate from arguing to the jury his opinion or his appraisal of the issues, of the evidence, or of the credibility of a witness. It is unprofessional conduct, meriting discipline by the court, for counsel either to vouch for his own witnesses or to categorize opposing witnesses as "liars"; that issue is for the jury. Not unlike yet other courts, we have more than once noted the frequency with which our records disclose violations of standards of permissible argument. As we said in Harris v. United States, 131 U.S.App. D.C. 105, 108, 402 F.2d 656, 659 (1968), we "must rely primarily on the trial judges to make clear that they do not want such argument," and we further pointed out that "disciplinary mechanisms are available to the trial courts to deal with unlawyerlike behavior."
We are fortified in our reiteration of our view in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Modica
...of Professional Responsibility. See, e. g., United States v. Splain, 545 F.2d 1131, 1135 (8th Cir. 1976); Olenin v. Curtin & Johnson, Inc., 424 F.2d 769, 769-70 (D.C.Cir.1970); United States v. Munford, 431 F.Supp. 278, 289 (E.D.Pa.1977); ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinar......
-
Burnett v. Ocean Props., Ltd.
...555 (1st Cir. 1987) ; NLRB v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp. , 677 F.2d 170, 171 n.1 (1st Cir. 1982) ; Olenin v. Curtin & Johnson, Inc. , 137 U.S. App. D.C. 281, 424 F.2d 769 (D.C. Cir. 1970) ). It also cites First Circuit caselaw prohibiting an attorney from arguing a specific amount of damages ......
-
U.S. v. Dean
...refrains from giving his personal opinion. Compare Harris v. United States, 402 F.2d 656 (D.C.Cir.1968); Olenin v. Curtin & Johnson, Inc., 424 F.2d 769 (D.C.Cir.1968) (per curiam). Other courts have reached the same conclusion. See United States v. Jacoby, 955 F.2d 1527, 1540-41 (11th Cir.1......
-
Psychiatric Institute of Washington, v. Allen
...v. United States, 444 A.2d 13, 15-16 (D.C. 1982); Dyson v. United States, 418 A.2d 127, 130 (D.C. 1980); Olenin v. Curtin & Johnson, Inc., 137 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 424 F.2d 769 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 993, 89 S.Ct. 1485, 22 L.Ed.2d 769 (1969). In particular, the use of such words as "li......
-
Calling the witness a liar during closing argument: the Florida Supreme Court's final approval.
...lied was an impermissible expression of personal opinion. Even more emphatic is the language in Olenin v. Curtin & Johnson, Inc., 424 F. 2d 769, 769 (D.C. Cir. 1968), in which the court stated in a personal injury action, "It is unprofessional conduct, meriting discipline by the court, ......