Loading…
36 verbatim mandatory provisions from Judge Blaue's Policies Page.
Eighteenth Judicial Circuit. Check the order's own effective and rescission dates before relying on it. Procedural information only; not legal advice.
Verbatim from the order's own text layer, harvested 2026-07-24; whitespace normalised only. No OCR was used. Only sentences containing mandatory language (shall, must, may not, no later than, within N) are reproduced — the full document is in custody and is the controlling text. • Inflammatory improper closing arguments designed to appeal to the emotions and passions of jurors must be stopped to maintain public confidence in our system of justice. • In 2021, the Fourth District Court of Appeal stressed and repeated with emphasis to trial judges that trial courts must be more vigilant in monitoring over-the-line closing arguments, choosing to discuss, as the primary purpose of the opinion, what they said in 1994: • State, 693 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (Sorondo, J. concurring). -- 2 of 9 -- (April 2024) Page 3 of 9 Absent any order to the contrary by this Court, counsel’s closing argument shall conform to the restrictions contained in this Order. • If counsel is uncertain whether a particular argument may violate this Order (or might otherwise be improper under existing caselaw) counsel should seek the guidance of the Court prior to presenting the argument to the jury. • Counsel should be afforded great latitude in presenting closing argument, but they must “confine their argument to the facts and evidence presented to the jury and all logical deductions from the facts and evidence.” Knoizen v. • In addition, counsel must not use closing argument to “inflame the minds and passions of the jurors so that their verdict reflects an emotional response…rather than the logical analysis of the evidence in light of the applicable law.” Bertolotti v. • Counsel shall not comment upon irrelevant matters unrelated to the evidence presented at trial. • Counsel shall not express their personal opinion or beliefs regarding any aspect of the evidence or testimony,1 or personally bolster or vouch for the credibility of any witness or party in this cause. • Counsel shall refrain from expressing personal knowledge of facts in issue or personal opinion as to the justness of the cause, the credibility of a witness or the culpability of a civil litigant. • Counsel shall not denigrate or impugn the integrity of opposing counsel. • Counsel shall avoid using derogatory terms when referring to the opposing party, a witness, or opposing counsel and shall not make any disparaging comments about counsel’s occupation or performance in court. • Counsel shall not denigrate or impugn the integrity of another party or a witness. • Counsel shall not argue that a party or witness fabricated evidence or has lied, absent record evidence to support such an argument. • If counsel believes the record supports the argument that the witness lied on the witness stand, then counsel shall demonstrate the same at sidebar before making the argument. 10. • If there is record evidence to support the argument that a witness lied in testimony, such argument shall be restricted to characterizing the witness’ testimony and counsel shall not engage in character assassination nor argue or imply that the witness is a chronic, habitual or pathological liar. • Counsel shall refrain from commenting on objections made by opposing counsel. • Counsel shall not suggest to the jurors that they represent the “conscience of the community” or urge the jury by its verdict to “send a message” to a party or to anyone else. • Counsel shall not attempt to sway the jury by playing upon juror’s sympathy, fears, biases or prejudices. • Counsel shall avoid making arguments intended to improperly elicit prejudice, sympathy or excessive emotion from the jury. • Counsel shall not attempt to evoke images of “runaway verdicts”, assert that a claim or defense is “frivolous”, characterize plaintiff’s case as “cashing in on a lottery ticket” or argue that the judicial system is “out of control.” Murphy v. • Counsel shall not argue that it is common in closing argument for a plaintiff to ask for more money than they think they are entitled to, or to ask for much more money than they think a jury would actually award. • Counsel shall not attempt to argue facts not in evidence or imply that counsel is aware of the existence of evidence or testimony not introduced at trial. • Counsel shall avoid making arguments that are not based on facts in evidence or reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom. • Counsel shall not argue what other lawyers, parties, witnesses or juries have done in other -- 6 of 9 -- (April 2024) Page 7 of 9 cases, if such evidence has not been properly introduced at trial. • Counsel shall not make any comments regarding a prior settlement with a former party to the case. • Counsel shall not make reference to any settlement offers made to an opposing party or the existence or nature of any settlement discussions. • Counsel shall not ask the jury to consider the relative wealth or financial conditions of the parties, or ask the jury to consider how a verdict might impact a party’s economic, employment or professional status.3 State Farm Mut. • Counsel shall not ask the jury to consider how a verdict might impact the jurors themselves or the community in general. • Counsel shall not urge the jury to draw an adverse inference from the failure of the opposing party to call a non-party witness unless the proper showing has first been made with the court. • Counsel shall not comment upon the presence or absence of insurance coverage, or comment on whether a party would or would not be responsible for paying any amount awarded. • Counsel shall not ask jurors to place themselves in the shoes of a party or ask jurors to view evidence from a party’s perspective, especially on the issue of financial responsibility or in determining the amount of damages which ought to be awarded. • Counsel shall avoid making arguments that place the jury or ask the jury to place itself in the place of the plaintiff or defendant. • Counsel shall not make any arguments that misstate the law or that mislead the jury. • Counsel shall not suggest to the jury that they should place a monetary value on a human life in the same manner as a monetary value is placed on a 10 million dollar work of art or an 18 million dollar jetliner. • Counsel shall not suggest to the jury that the court can reduce or increase any damage award the jury returns. • It is further ADJUDGED that within five days from the date of eservice of this Order, the [Plaintiff/Defendant] shall:
Inflammatory improper closing arguments designed to appeal to the emotions and passions of jurors must be stopped to maintain public confidence in our system of justice.
Reviewer note: Document sha256: b11bb8a92c042b9cff9fd042d228f24192dfcfa738498399aa24a96689bc050d (194357 bytes). BenchPath harvested this circuit itself because no research corpus existed for it. Extraction is conservative: mandatory-language sentences only, so this rule is a faithful subset of the order, never a summary of it.
1 verbatim requirement published by Palm Beach magistrate 01 on hearing time & argument limits.
1 verbatim requirement published by Palm Beach magistrate 02 on hearing time & argument limits.
1 verbatim requirement published by Palm Beach magistrate 03 on hearing time & argument limits.