The Appellate Division recently vacated a $300,000 jury award in a personal injury lawsuit due to the misuse of a PowerPoint presentation by the plaintiff’s attorney during closing arguments. In this matter, Anthony Romano filed a lawsuit against Michael Stubbs in connection with an altercation that occurred at 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 due to his alleged violation 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 into the ground. Stubbs ultimately pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct for this altercation.
Romano alleged that as a result of this incident he suffered an injury to the ulnar nerve in his elbow that required surgery. Additionally, 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 attorney’s use of a PowerPoint presentation during closing arguments. During the break between closing arguments by defense counsel and the beginning of closing arguments by plaintiff’s counsel, it was first revealed that plaintiff intended to use a PowerPoint presentation during closing. Defense counsel objected to the use of the PowerPoint presentation by plaintiff’s counsel at that time. The trial judge allowed the use of the PowerPoint presentation and concluded that the plaintiff’s attorney would not project anything he would not say into 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 criminal, 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, evidence-based closing arguments are permissible, but arguments that “change the jury’s focus from a fair evaluation of the evidence to follow a course designed to inflaming the jury by repeatedly appealing to inappropriate and irrelevant considerations are not.” The Court recognized that while “lawyer has wide latitude to passionately defend his clients’ cases in summary, 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 frame Romano, they constituted improper arguments. As such, the Court concluded that “the cumulative impact of multiple violations on Plaintiff’s closing argument leaves us without confidence in the fairness of the damages awarded.”
Accordingly, the damages were annulled and the matter remanded to the trial court for a new trial for damages.