On June 20, 2018, Fred Zinober had the honor of arguing before the Second District Court of Appeal. The interesting issue before the Court related to a party’s duty to disclose evidence to the opposing party before introducing that evidence to a jury at trial. In sum, Fred argued that the Plaintiff in the underlying trial introduced “surprise” testimony that had not previously been disclosed to the Defendant. Moreover, Fred argued that the evidence at issue was crucial to the outcome of the case, and therefore, was unduly prejudicial to the Defendant.
The spirited argument focused upon Supreme Court precedent, primarily the 1981 case of Binger v. King Pest Control, and the parameters of the admissibility of evidence at trial. At the conclusion of the argument, Fred pleaded with the Court to author an opinion that provides guidance to future trial counsel as to the extent they are required to alert the opposing attorney of evidence or testimony that had not previously been revealed in discovery, but could impact the ultimate result of the trial. We anxiously await the Court’s directive in that regard, and we will keep our friends advised of the outcome. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our firm for more information.