Selman Keeps Trial Win at Nevada Supreme Court, Decision Impacts Use of Surveillance Video

Selman congratulates Elaine Fresch and Jerry Popovich on a successful Nevada Supreme Court ruling they originally obtained for their respective clients – David Copperfield, David Copperfield’s Disappearing, Inc. and MGM Grand Hotel – in 2018.

Pop-n-Fresch, as the two Selman partners are known within the firm, endured a seven-week trial, before reaching a winning jury verdict that was then affirmed by the Nevada Supreme Court after two oral arguments.

Of note during the 2018 trial was the decision to render permissible the use of surveillance videos to impeach the actions of a plaintiff during the liability phase of trial, rather than to impeach testimony. The appeal centered on several arguments that the District Court had abused its discretion, including admitting the videos, as well as alleging the jury had not followed the Court’s instructions.

The Supreme Court found that there had been no abuse of discretion during the 2018 proceedings and upheld the original verdict.

“The Supreme Court’s decision is comprehensive, and I am very pleased for my clients that we were able to obtain this result which is significant for all shows with volunteer participants,” said Elaine Fresch, Managing Partner of Selman’s Las Vegas office and attorney for David Copperfield and his company.  

Jerry Popovich, Managing Partner of Selman’s Orange County office and attorney for MGM Grand Hotel stated: "The Supreme Court’s opinion about the use of contradiction-by-impeachment evidence will be significant in future trials.”  

Full details about the original personal injury case involving Copperfield’s “Lucky #13” illusion can be found here.

To read the Las Vegas Review-Journal article, Injured Copperfield Trick Participant Loses Lawsuit Appeal, please click here

Appellants have 18 days to petition for a rehearing.  

__________

Selman Breitman provides this information for educational purposes. Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case. This information should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship.