Bernstein v. Fernandez, 649 A.2d 1064 (1991)

Citation: Bernstein v. Fernandez, 649 A.2d 1064 (1991)
Parent Document: Bernstein v. Fernandez, 649 A.2d 1064 (1991)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 1991-03-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2103411/bernstein-v-fernandez/ ↗

Full Text

1,202 chars

We readily agree that calling the landlord an “outlaw” was improper. See United States v. Somers, 496 F.2d 723, 737-739 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 832, 95 S.Ct. 56, 42 L.Ed.2d 58 (1974). On the record as a whole, however, we are satisfied that the comment did not result in any significant prejudice to H & M. Considered in the context of the entire trial, the word “outlaw” can be read as suggesting merely that H & M was not in compliance with housing regulations. We have affirmed judgments in other cases when counsel made comments far more outrageous than what we find here. In one such ease, for example, the prosecutor analogized the defendant to a member of the Mafia. Harris v. United States, 430 A.2d 536, 540-541 (D.C.1981). In another, the plaintiffs counsel accused defense witnesses of fabricating their testimony and attempting to perpetrate a fraud on the jury. Psychiatric Institute v. Allen, 509 A.2d 619, 627-628 (D.C.1986). We found these remarks offensive but not prejudicial in the context of the record as a whole. In light of these and similar precedents, we conclude that counsel’s isolated comment here does not require a new trial. 2.The interruption from the audience

Other Sections in This Document (123)

Full Text