Just as a ship needs a compass, a jury needs evidence to navigate its way to a fair verdict — emotion has no place at the helm. The “Golden Rule” tactic encourages jurors to place themselves in the plaintiff’s shoes and allow emotions, rather than facts, to shape their verdict. Maryland courts prohibit Golden Rule arguments at trial for precisely this reason — they undermine juror impartiality and increase the risk of inflated damages awards.
The danger of this tactic is in its subtlety; there are so many variations of the argument that they can be easily missed.
“Imagine this happened to you…”
“How much would you want if you lost the use of your legs?”
“Think about how you’d feel if your mother died because of this mistake.”
“Wouldn’t you want your child to be kept safe if…”
At Waranch & Brown, we are vigilant in identifying and countering the Golden Rule argument. Our approach is twofold: first, we swiftly object to its use, ensuring that the court is aware of the violation. A motion to strike and/or a motion for a mistrial may be necessary. Second, we proactively craft our own arguments to re-focus the jury on the evidence, emphasizing that their role is to assess the facts impartially, without being swayed by appeals to their emotions. By tackling the Golden Rule argument head-on, we safeguard the integrity of the trial process and uphold the principle that justice should be grounded in reason, not sentiment.
Waranch & Brown is prepared to combat the Golden Rule tactic at trial. Please contact us for assistance with your legal matter; our team of experienced trial attorneys is here to help.