Defense Lawyer’s Final Argument Egregious But Not Prejudicial.

During her final argument in a product liability case involving severe physical injuries to the child plaintiff undergoing a tonsillectomy with the use of an electrocautery device, defense counsel included the following statements:  “[Plaintiff] has crafted a case to fit what he wants. He’s crafted it. Why? I think you know. I think you’ve all heard the term. Two words. Very simple. Deep pockets;” “If his family can be in this courtroom almost every day to support him, then certainly they can be at home and support him and make sure he completes the work he needs to complete in order to develop the skills that we all want him to have and that he can have;” “You’re sending a message to this family.  And the message is, Help him. Help him learn so that he can learn to help himself.”  The jury found for the defendant.  On appeal, the court stated:  “We hold that the misconduct, though egregious, was not prejudicial in the circumstances of this case. We therefore affirm the judgment.”  Garcia v. Conmed Corp.  (Cal. App. Sixth Dist.; March 8, 2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 144, [138 Cal.Rptr.3d 665].