explaining that “sanctions for professional misconduct at trial in civil cases are best considered in the first instance by the district court. Therefore, the district court may, on a party’s motion or sua sponte, impose sanctions for professional misconduct at trial . . .”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “sanctions for professional misconduct at trial in civil cases are best considered in the first instance by the district court. Therefore, the district court may, on a party’s motion or sua sponte, impose sanctions for professional misconduct at trial . . .”
- explaining that it is impermissible for an attorney to make a so-called golden rule argument by asking the jurors to place themselves in plaintiff’s position or to nullify the jury’s role by asking it to instead “send a message” to the defendant
- holding that unobjected-to attorney misconduct warrants a new trial only when "no other reasonable explanation for the verdict exists'
- recognizing that this court may review unobjected-to attorney misconduct for plain error on appeal relating to a motion for new trial
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Parraguirre, J., with whom Maupin, J., agrees,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with the majority’s analysis and conclusions relating to attorney misconduct jurisprudence. I also concur with my colleagues’ decision to decline the imposition of monetary sanctions. I disagree, however, with the majority’s decision to refer defense counsel to the State Bar of Nevada.
As stated in my previous partial dissent, the district court has the benefit of evaluating all conduct during the course of trial and is in a superior position to determine and impose appropriate penalties for attorney misconduct occurring at trial. Absent a finding of appellate abuse in this case, I would decline to refer defense counsel to the state bar.