Court Gave Needed Guidance on Video Playback
In 'Hayes,' the court has provided clear guidelines for the handling of evidential issues that occur with some frequency. Since prior opinions on these issues have been principally by the Appellate Division, it is helpful and appropriate that the bench and bar have now guidance by our highest court.
January 29, 2018 at 11:00 AM
4 minute read
In Doreen Hayes v. Barbara Delamotte, decided Jan. 10, 2018, the New Jersey Supreme Court considered an automobile accident case in which the defendants presented to the jury evidence, in the form of a videotaped de bene esse deposition of an expert surgeon who had examined the plaintiff. The witness compared two MRIs of plaintiff's cervical spine, identifying one as having been taken before the accident in question and the other after. The doctor also testified, over plaintiff's objection, to opinions contained in reports of two non-testifying doctors. During summation, plaintiff's counsel was not permitted to replay a portion of the videotaped deposition in order to show to the jury that despite labels indicating to the contrary, the two MRIs were the same post-accident exam date. The trial judge denied plaintiff's request on the ground that it would have been necessary for plaintiff to establish for the jury that the two MRIs were in fact the same, and plaintiff had not done so.
Following a judgment for the defendants, plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was granted on the ground that the jury had given greater weight to the testimony of the defendants' expert than to that of plaintiff's expert. In the second trial, the defense expert again testified by video deposition, which had been taken for purposes of the second trial. That proceeding ended in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the trial court had improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The Appellate Division reinstated the jury finding at the first trial in favor of the defendants.
The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the jury's verdict in the second trial, holding that the trial court had erred in preventing the plaintiff from replaying the deposition portion during summation and that that had resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
In its unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held first that the trial judge should have permitted plaintiff's counsel to comment on the videotaped deposition during summation. Although holding that counsel's latitude in summation is not without limits, so long as the comments in summation are limited to facts that were adduced during trial or that were reasonably suggested by the evidence during the trial, such summation should be permitted. One other limitation that the court expressed was that the replay during summation “'should not be so lengthy as to constitute a second trial emphasizing only one litigant's side of the case.'” (Quoting from Condella v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 298 N.J. Super. 531, 536 (Law Div. 1996)). The court concluded that plaintiff's counsel's effort to comment on the MRI dates during summation “…would not have been an attempt to misuse [the] testimony, but merely a legitimate attempt to emphasize a certain aspect of [the witness's] testimony, namely, the dates on the MRIs… .”
The Supreme Court also considered plaintiff's argument that at the first trial, the judge should not have admitted so much of the videotaped expert testimony as involved reports of non-testifying experts. The court said that although the expert may articulate the reasons underlying his or her opinion and the sources upon which the opinion is based, “'[a]n expert witness should not be allowed to relate the opinions of a nontestifying expert merely because those opinions are congruent with the ones he has reached.'” (Citing Krohn v. N.J. Full Ins. Underwriters Ass'n, 316 N.J. Super. 477, 486 (App. Div. 1998)). In the case before them, the Supreme Court felt that the expert witness had gone beyond permissible bounds in referring to the non-testifying witnesses and that the trial court erred in permitting the expert “…to bolster his testimony using 'congruent' opinions … rather than simply explain[ing] the sources of information used in formulating his opinion.” In Hayes, the court has provided clear guidelines for the handling of evidential issues that occur with some frequency. Since prior opinions on these issues have been principally by the Appellate Division, it is helpful and appropriate that the bench and bar now have guidance by our highest court.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNJ Justices Provide A Sensible Decision on the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
4 minute readControversial Ethics Proceedings Against Mercer Judge Was Overreach. Stopping It Was the Right Thing to Do
3 minute readWe Applaud NJ Supreme Court's Balanced Rules for Reinstatement of Disbarred Attorneys
4 minute readAppellate Division Rulings Remind Us That, Despite Arbitration's Informal Nature, There Are Rules
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250