41 Fla. L. Weekly D1709a
Dr. Ipser’s Delta-v Testimony
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify about it in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts and data; (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
Comments Regarding Plaintiff’s Deposition
During Closing Arguments
[D]isregard the last statement by counsel, something to the effect that there was nothing in [Appellant’s] deposition that had to do with her tapping the brakes to disengage the cruise control. Again, I will remind you again, rely on your memories of what you heard as evidence on every topic, okay?
Additional Errors and Improprieties
Violation of Accident Report Privilege
Testimony Concerning How Physician Was Paid
Insinuation that Appellant Had Previously
Received a Speeding Ticket
During defense counsel’s cross-examination of plaintiff, the following exchange took place:
DEFENSE COUNSEL: And is it something that you do every day in setting the cruise control to monitor your speeds going home from work?
PLAINTIFF: Yes, sir, because [police] have radars out there.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: So you set the cruise control on 35 and then 45 every day while coming home from work?
PLAINTIFF: I always did. . . .
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Did you ever get — Strike that.
Cumulative Effect of Errors and Improprieties
Jurors cannot be expected to understand the basis of counsel’s repeated objections. All that is apparent to jurors placed in this position is that frequent objections and sidebar conferences prolong their service, and perhaps limit the information available to the jury. Thus, counsel’s repeated objections to the same type of behavior may well lead the jury to infer that one side of the case is trying to hide or disguise matters that would be useful to the jury.
Bocher, 874 So. 2d at 704.
I’m going to instruct the jury to disregard the last statement by counsel, something to the effect that there was nothing in the plaintiff’s deposition that had to do with her tapping the brakes to disengage the cruise control. Again, I will remind you again, rely on your memories of what you heard here as evidence on every topic, okay? Thank you.
While it is clearly improper for an attorney to bolster the credibility of a witness, attack a party for putting on a valid defense, or appeal to the conscience of the community, most of the improper arguments were timely objected to; curative instructions were given . . .; and the prejudice to the City caused by these improper arguments was mitigated by the curative instructions.
Id. at 925.
* * *