Martino was entering the country from haiti with

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: . Martino, was entering the country from Haiti with approximately $ 234,000. Marino, who was involved in a conspiracy to rob passengers carrying large sums of money into the United States, had Mr. Martino robbed at gunpoint. This case proceeded to trial and during closing argument, Dade County's counsel made several, unobjected to comments. For example, during closing argument, he argued as follows: So this verdict will ring out through the State of Florida and it will say, hey, Dade County is really vulnerable in these negligent hiring cases and we are going to start now every time an employee steals something, every time an employee assaults somebody, you are going to have a dearth of lawsuits here. This is a signal case and I will tell you right now it was I, me, Mr. Sikes who decided to try this lawsuit based upon my recommendation to Dade County. In addition, he also argued as follows: You know, I don't dislike Mr. Martino. He kind of got mad [**3] with me when I was talking to me [sic]. I didn't mean to make him mad. I wanted to find out where he got those dollars. Those companies had to be doing a whole lot of business in two months because we went back months before - we went back years before and he was bringing in five, $ 6,000, $ 20,000 and then one shipment $ 336,000. A million dollars. Over a million dollars in two months. Also, in reference to the plaintiffs' only expert witness, Kenneth Harms, the former Chief of Police of the City of Miami Police Department, Dade County's counsel argued as follows: That's what Harms needs. Harms needs one of those tall hats that they wear down in the Banana Republic. The guy that has got all the braids. He is the guy whose a dictator because it's Harm's law. Plaintiffs now argue that these comments and others constituted fundamental error requiring reversal. A contemporaneous objection to improper comments is necessary to preserve error, unless the error is fundamental. Brumage v. Plummer, 502 So. 2d 966, 5 968 (Fla....
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online