California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Saar v. Niven, G044848, Super. Ct. No. 30-2009-00121669 (Cal. App. 2012):
Plaintiffs assert "many . . . instances of misconduct that occurred during defense counsel's closing argument[] were matters that had originated during witness examination, for which timely objections were made . . . ." They also note each party was "only allowed approximately 30 minutes for closing argument." But they offer no authority for their apparent proposition that either reason justifies the failure to object or request admonitions during the opposing party's closing argument. The claim is forfeited. (Evans v. CenterStone Development Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 151, 165.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.