It is misconduct for counsel to argue to the jury that there is no evidence on an issue when he knows that such evidence exists but was excluded at his request.  Here counsel exacerbated that misconduct by telling the jury that the court’s admonition to ignore the arresting officer’s statement about defendnat’s intoxication showed the testimony was nothing but a suspicion.  Defendant’s counsel committed further misconduct in telling the jury that plaintiff had not disclosed a doctor in discovery when the interrogatory responses and deposition testimony on the subject had not been admitted in evidence.  And he again exacerbated the problem by arguing the point to the court in the jury’s presence, repeatedly stating what was said in the discovery responses that weren’t in evidence.  This misconduct was prejudicial and fully supported the trial court’s grant of a new trial.