## Facts

- Paulino Izaguirre Rojas worked as a ranch hand for Robert Richardson on Richardson’s ranch in Texas.
- Rojas was injured while working on the ranch and claimed the injury resulted from Richardson’s negligence.
- Rojas sued Richardson in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas under diversity jurisdiction, seeking damages for personal injury.
- During trial, Richardson’s attorney repeatedly referred to Rojas as an “alien.”
- In closing argument, defense counsel urged the jury not to give Rojas special treatment because he was an “illegal alien” and asked jurors to consider how “you or I” would be treated in Mexico if the situation were reversed.
- Rojas’s attorney did not make a contemporaneous objection to these remarks during closing argument.
- The trial judge instructed the jury that all persons are equal before the law and that the case should be treated as an action between two persons of equal standing in the community.
- The jury returned a verdict for Richardson, and the district court entered judgment on the verdict.
- Rojas appealed, arguing that the nationality- and immigration-status-themed argument was so inflammatory that it required reversal despite the lack of objection.

## Issues

1. Whether defense counsel’s closing-argument references to Rojas as an “illegal alien,” to which no contemporaneous objection was made, required reversal of a defense verdict in a civil diversity negligence case.
2. Whether the trial court’s instruction that all persons are equal before the law cured any possible prejudice from the closing argument.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for Richardson.
- The court held that, given the absence of a timely objection and the trial court’s instructions directing the jury to treat the parties equally, the remarks did not warrant reversal.
- The court concluded that the challenged argument did not rise to the level of fundamental unfairness that would justify setting aside the verdict in a civil case without an objection.

## Legal Principles

- Improper or inflammatory closing argument in a civil case generally is not grounds for reversal when the complaining party failed to object at trial and therefore did not give the trial court an opportunity to correct the problem.
- An appellate court will reverse without a contemporaneous objection only in rare situations where the argument is so prejudicial that it results in fundamental unfairness and affects substantial rights.
- Curative jury instructions reminding jurors that all persons stand equal before the law and that the case must be decided on the evidence can mitigate potential prejudice from improper remarks.

## Conclusion

Rojas v. Richardson holds that nationality- or immigration-status-charged closing argument, even if improper, does not require a new trial in a civil negligence action when the opposing party did not object at the time and the trial judge instructed the jury to treat both parties as equal before the law, absent a showing that the comments rendered the trial fundamentally unfair.


Rojas v. Richardson, 703 F.2d 186 (5th Cir. 1983)