Judgment In Personal Injury Case Reversed After Trial Judge Told Jury Plaintiff Was An Undocumented Immigrant.

In a lawsuit involving a rare lung disease allegedly caused by a toxic workplace substance, one of the elements of damages was the cost of a future lung transplant. In a motion in limine, the plaintiff sought an order prohibiting the defense from mentioning he was an undocumented immigrant. The defense argued that since plaintiff might be deported, he would not be getting a lung transplant in the U.S.A., and, therefore, evidence of his immigration status was relevant and necessary to argue against the cost of a lung transplant as well as plaintiff’s eligibility for a lung transplant in this country. The trial court ruled plaintiff’s immigration status was admissible, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial judge erred in informing the venire of prospective jurors that plaintiff is an undocumented immigrant and in denying plaintiff’s motion for mistrial after that disclosure, stating that in its Evidence Code section 352 analysis, “The court overweighed the probative value of the evidence of immigration status on the question of whether [plaintiff] could feasibly argue he expected to require, and to receive, a lung transplant in the future.” (Velasquez v. Centrome, Inc. (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 8; January 30, 2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1191 [183 Cal.Rptr.3d 150].)