HERMAN A. OLBEK, APPELLANT,
v.
MONICA JANE KRAUT, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Intervention cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS, C.J., and PETERSON, J., concur. GRIFFIN, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
GRIFFIN, Judge,
concurring specially.
Appellant contends that defense counsel’s witness interrogation and closing argument were improper, most prominently for injection of personal opinion, inflammatory argument of the “smoke and mirrors” sort and argument of facts not in evidence. Appellant is correct and the lower court should have stepped in, sustained such objections as were correctly made and let counsel know such improper comments would not be tolerated. BellSouth Human Resources Administration, Inc. v. Colatarci, 641 So. 2d 427, 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Indeed, given the commitment of this court and others to reverse, even in the absence of objection,1 where counsel’s conduct violates the code of professional responsibility, the trial judge should take appropriate measures to prevent such conduct. Pippin v. Latosynski, 622 So. 2d 566, 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
The appellate courts of this state report a growing frustration and quickly diminishing level of tolerance with the type and quality of final arguments in jury eases. Bosch v. Hajjar, 639 So. 2d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (Alvarez, A.J., concurring specially). The number of recent opinions on this issue (and reversals on this basis) is significant but not surprising. My own guess is that this is due less to a deterioration in ethical standards than to ignorance, poor training and lack of courtroom experience on the part of many trial lawyers. It also appears that the law pertaining to closing argument is growing in complexity. In reviewing opinions issued within the last two years, I counted fourteen discrete types of improper argument. Clearly, this is an area where training of counsel and of the judiciary is badly needed in order to prevent the waste of judicial resources, the squandering of juror time and effort and the expense of retrial incurred by the litigants.
I have joined the majority in refusing to reverse on the basis of defense counsel’s comments for the reason expressed in my dissent in Blalock and also because the comments involved in this case (although improper) seem more ineffectual than inflammatory. After looking at the remaining issues raised by Appellant, I conclude none warrants reversal.
. See, e.g., Walt Disney World Co. v. Blalock, 640 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murad Rashid Muhammad v. Toys "R" US, Inc., 668 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…Food Stores, Inc., 644 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), any unseemly conduct that lowers the professional reputation of the Bar and brings disrepute to our judicial system must be curtailed. See also the specially concurring opinion in Olbek v. Kraut, 650 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), wherein Judge Griffin articulates the frustration of the appellate courts and the diminishing level of tolerance with the type and quality of final arguments in jury cases: The number of recent opinions on this issue (and rever…
-
Valerie and Russell Hammond v. Sharon and John Mulligan, Sr., 667 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…, 662 So. 2d 932 (Fla.1995). It is evident from the expressions of concern and frustration in opinions issued from this court and the other district courts of appeal that the problem of improper closing arguments is widespread. See Olbek v. Kraut, 650 So. 2d. 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (Griffin, J., concurring); Luce v. State, 642 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (Blue, J., concurring); Emerson Electric Company v. Garcia, 623 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Venning v. Roe, 616 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Why the p…
-
Scala v. State, 213 So. 3d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…error by themselves” (quoting Wicklow v. State, 43 So. 3d 85, 88 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)); Brown v. State, 733 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding prosecutor’s ridiculing defendant’s theory of defense as a "smoke screen” improper); Olbek v. Kraut, 650 So. 2d 1138, 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)(Griffin, J., concurring)(condemning comment characterizing opposing counsel’s arguments as "smoke and mirrors”); Redish v. State, 525 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (holding prosecutor's reference in closing argument to def…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Walt Disney World Co. v. Blalock, 640 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Pippin v. Latosynski, 622 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Bellsouth Human Res. Admin., Inc. v. Colatarci, 641 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Oneila Bosch and Jose Bosch v. Daniel G. Hajjar, D.D.S., 639 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)