“A $50 million painting sits protected in a museum, while this family is left to grapple with their loss as if it’s worth nothing.”
“Most of us will never see a $50 million painting, but we all know the value of a human life. It’s beyond any price tag.”
Arguments like these — called unsubstantiated anchoring — utilize manipulative emotional appeals instead of evidence-based, factual arguments. In recent years, courts have begun cracking down on the improper use of jury arguments like these.
Gregory v. Chohan, a 2023 Texas wrongful death case, first spotlighted this concept. There, the plaintiff’s counsel compared the value of his client’s loss to the cost of a $71 million dollar fighter jet and a $186 million dollar painting. The Texas Supreme Court deemed these analogies to be irrelevant and improper and reversed the plaintiff’s jury verdict. In doing so, the appellate court emphasized that “unsubstantiated anchors” had no rational connection to the alleged injuries.
Since Gregory, Texas courts have consistently reinforced this principle, overturning verdicts influenced by such tactics. In these cases, plaintiffs made arguments that their losses should be compared to a $350 million dollar painting, and multimillion-dollar athlete and CEO salaries.
While Maryland appellate courts have not yet explicitly addressed unsubstantiated anchoring, at Waranch & Brown we understand how these tactics can unfairly influence outcomes, and our attorneys are experienced in identifying and dismantling these arguments. Our team employs proactive strategies, including pretrial motions to preclude arbitrary comparisons, vigilant objections during trial, and closing arguments that keep the focal point on the evidence.
With a deep commitment to upholding fairness and a proven track record in Maryland courtrooms, we are ready to advocate for our clients with precision and skill. If you need legal assistance in a high-value case, our experienced attorneys are here to help.