Martinez v. Department of Transportation
238 Cal. App. 4th 559
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Martinez sued Caltrans for dangerous condition of a B4 curb at the Orange Crush interchange; alleged curb caused motorcycle loss of control at dusk.
- Pretrial in limine orders barred references to Martinez's 2003 termination and to motorcycle club imagery; orders also excluded certain medical evidence and hearsay.
- Bilotti, Caltrans' trial counsel, repeatedly violated limine orders and sustained objections during cross-examinations about Martinez's 2003 termination and other topics.
- Opening and closing arguments included references to Caltrans's finances and assertions of immunity, and Bilotti made a reiterative Nazi/Set Free imagery cross to attack Martinez's character.
- A Nazi reference and repeated ad hominem insinuations occurred, with Bilotti acknowledging a strategy to undermine Martinez's credibility due to his church work.
- The trial court denied a motion for mistrial and a new trial; the jury returned a defense verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Bilotti's misconduct require reversal? | Martinez argues repeated limine violations and improper attacks prejudice the jury. | Caltrans asserts limited evidentiary objections were resolved; no reversible misconduct occurred. | Yes; multiple improper appeals necessitated reversal. |
| Was the misconduct prejudicial under Sabella factors? | Misconduct tainted the trial atmosphere and juror perception. | Objections mitigated impact; no substantial prejudice proven. | Prejudice established; Sabella factors favor reversal. |
| Did the Nazi/absenteeism references amplify prejudice? | These references were gratuitous and designed to besmirch Martinez. | References were responsive to testimony; within permissible trial strategy. | Part of the prejudicial misconduct; supports reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sabella v. Southern Pac. Co., 70 Cal.2d 311 (Cal. Supreme 1969) (factors for prejudice in attorney misconduct)
- Gackstetter v. Market S. R. Co., 130 Cal.App.3d 316 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (cumulative effect of misconduct supports reversal)
- Du Jardin v. City of Oxnard, 38 Cal.App.4th 174 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (misconduct impacting public entity defenses)
- Seimon v. Southern Pac. Transportation Co., 67 Cal.App.3d 600 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) (prohibition on appeals to prejudice and sympathy)
- Pellegrini v. Weiss, 165 Cal.App.4th 515 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (prohibition on irrelevant ad hominem attacks)
- Stone v. Foster, 106 Cal.App.3d 334 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980) (ad hominem attacks improper)
- Las Palmas Associates v. Las Palmas Center Associates, 235 Cal.App.3d 1220 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (prohibition on personal attacks)
- City of Los Angeles v. Decker, 18 Cal.3d 860 (Cal. Supreme 1977) (independent record-based prejudice assessment)
- Garcia v. ConMed Corp., 204 Cal.App.4th 144 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) ( Sabella factor application to prejudice)