CBA Record November-December 2023

YOUNG LAWYERS SECTION

doctor’s surgery. The plaintiff sought to recall as a rebuttal witness the surgeon who operated on him because the surgeon was prepared to testify that the model the defense expert used was misleading. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the appellate court held that the plaintiff should have been allowed to present this rebuttal witness to explain the defects of the model. Generally, a plaintiff cannot use rebut tal as an opportunity to present new evi dence that could have been introduced in a plaintiff’s case-in-chief. However, the fact that such evidence could have been raised in a plaintiff’s case-in-chief does not necessarily render it inadmissible rebuttal evidence. As the Fourth District explained in Hoem v. Zia, 239 Ill. App. 3d 601 (1992), imposing on plaintiffs a “pre

emptive strike” rule “would be counter productive to the concerns expressed by the trial court… Such a rule would also be antithetical to the concerns expressed by all involved in our civil justice system about its present costs, wastes, and delays.” Similar circumstances also occurred in Chapman v. Hubbard Woods Motors, Inc., 351 Ill. App. 3d 99 (1st Dist. 2004), where the appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion when denying plaintiff’s request to call a rebuttal witness because the need to introduce the witness’s testimony did not arise until evi dence was introduced in the defendant’s case-in-chief. In other words, it would be impractical for every piece of relevant evi dence to be introduced in a plaintiff’s case in-chief because there may be no reason

for such introduction until the defendant’s presentation of certain evidence. When seeking to offer rebuttal evi dence, whether in civil or criminal cases, lawyers must be familiar with these limi tations so they can understand whether their rebuttal can be admitted. It is equally important to keep in mind that the purpose of rebuttal evidence is, in fact, to rebut. It is not an opportunity to squeeze in irrelevant evidence or surprise information. As settled, the introduction of rebuttal evidence is not a right.

Elaina Stevens is an associate attorney at David A. Axelrod & Associates, P.C., practicing primarily in personal injury litigation.

YLS Section leadership welcomed more than 75 law stu dents to the annual “Back-to-School Bash” in September. Pictured: YLS Director Andre Hunter, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani; YLS Immediate Past Chair Daniel Berkowitz, Aronberg Goldgehn; and YLS Second Vice Chair Gavin Phelps, Phelps LLC.

The Chicago Bar Association recently visited a student fair at Southern Illinois University School of Law. Pic tured from left: Nicole Lach, a current 2L at SIU, and CBA Board Member Peter McNamara, Chicago Transit Authority.

CBA RECORD 41