The defendants brought a motion for a mistrial during trial, alleging prejudice from a newspaper article and improper conduct by plaintiffs' counsel.
The court dismissed the mistrial motion, finding no real danger of prejudice as no jurors had read the article, and that appropriate judicial instructions could cure any potential harm.
The court also ruled on the admissibility of the plaintiffs' expert evidence regarding dependency loss, specifically allowing a scenario based on career advancement despite some foundational facts not being fully proven, emphasizing that the weight, not admissibility, of expert testimony is affected by unproven facts.
