The Superior Court also held that the powerpoint slides were permissible in the Closing Argument even though the slides had not been admitted into evidence.
Notably, the court also held that opposing counsel had no right to review the materials used in an opponent’s closing argument prior to the presentation of the same.
This decision is otherwise notable for the Superior Court’s decision that the trial court should have required clarification as to which part of a witness’s testimony was lay opinion testimony and which part was expert opinion testimony where that single witness gave both types of opinion testimony. The Superior Court found that, since no clarification was given at the trial court level, this was reversible error.
Anyone wishing to review a copy
of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James
M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith and the writer of the Drug and
Device Law Blog for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.