When the court plays fast and loose with the rules, the verdict doesn’t stand a chance.

In Odom v. Los Angeles Community College District, the Second Appellate District reversed a $10 million jury verdict and remanded for a new trial after finding the trial court's evidentiary rulings were arbitrary, prejudicial, and unmoored from the Evidence Code. The trial judge admitted inflammatory “me-too” testimony from a student worker whose allegations weren’t even directed at the defendant, and who wasn't similarly situated to the plaintiff, a tenured professor. The judge also injected personal and racially charged commentary into the proceedings, undermining judicial neutrality. The appellate court concluded that this amounted to a textbook abuse of discretion under Evidence Code §352, creating a prejudicial sideshow that likely swayed the jury. For trial teams, this is a masterclass reminder: relevance, similarity, and judicial restraint aren't optional—they're appellate lifelines.