How have courts dealt with the issue of misconduct by counsel counsel in a motor vehicle accident case?

California courts do not indulge in the naive assumption that uncolored awareness of insurance coverage will lead the jurors into an excessive verdict. (Causey v. Cornelius,

Page 229

For all that any of us judges know, the attempt may have been successful. I have trouble with the notion that the appellate court should accept the trial court's determination of misconduct's effect unless it is 'plainly wrong.' (See Sabella v. Southern Pac. Co., supra, 70 A.C. at p. 330, fn. 5, 74 Cal.Rptr. 534, 449 P.2d 750.) The determination is too subjective, involving variables of tolerance. Moreover, trial judges have no more access to jury room dialogues than do appellate judges.

There were enough objections and requests for admonition to demonstrate that defense counsel was not indulging in silence for the purpose of gambling on the verdict. (Cf. Sabella v. Southern Pac. Co., supra, 70 A.C. at pp. 331--332, 74 Cal.Rptr. 534, 449 P.2d 750; Horn v. Atchinson T & S.F. Ry. Co., 61 Cal.2d 602, 610, 39 Cal.Rptr. 721, 394 P.2d 561.) The cumulative prejudice from the combination of improprieties was such that no admonition[4 Cal.App.3d 238] could cure it. (Hoffman v. Brandt, 65 Cal.2d 549, 553, 55 Cal.Rptr. 417, 421 P.2d 425.)