included egregious leading of witnesses, coaching his client during cross-examination and attempting to address the jury during a sidebar conference); Patchell v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 90-4745, 1992 WL 799399, at *3-6 (E.D.Pa. July 31, 1992)(setting aside $700,000.00 plaintiffs verdict and ordering new trial in part because of Barish’s “inflammatory and prejudicial” remarks). In light of this record, the District Court acted well within its discretion when it denied Barish the privilege of admission pro hac vice. The second issue raised by Jacob is whether the District Court abused its discretion when it permitted an amendment to the final pretrial order to enable Amtrak to show surveillance tapes of him. See Greate Bay Hotel & Casino v. Tose, 34 F.3d 1227, 1236 (3d Cir.1994)(<HOLDING>). Final pretrial orders may only be modified
recognizing that the decision of whether to give a jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that decision to allow use of witnesses or exhibits not previously identified is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard holding that a district courtsfinding of equitable estoppel is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion holding that the admission of evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for abuse of discretion