Don’t Do These 4 Things During Your Closing Argument

The permissible scope of counsel’s closing arguments before a jury is broad, but there are limits. Here are 4 things that tread into improper territory. Making a Golden Rule argument. The so-called “Golden Rule argument” to a jury—that the jury should place itself in the plaintiff’s situation and award what it would “charge” to undergo an equivalent disability—is improper. You make an impermissible “Golden Rule” argument if you urge the jurors to put themselves in your client’s position or to view the case from your client’s personal perspective. See Cassim v Allstate Ins. Co. (2004) 33 C4th 780, 797. And in the federal courts, even an indirect “Golden Rule” argument by plaintiff’s counsel is improper, such as saying: “[I]t’s improper for us to say ‘Put yourself in the plaintiff’s shoes.'” Woods v Burlington Northern R.R. Co. (11th Cir 1985) 768 F2d 1287,…

Read more detail on Recent Business Law posts –

This entry was posted in Business law and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply