Legal Definitions - golden rule argument

The golden rule argument is a specific type of appeal made by a lawyer during a jury trial. It occurs when a lawyer asks the jurors to imagine themselves in the position of one of the parties involved in the case, typically the victim or the injured person. The lawyer then urges the jury to deliver a verdict or award damages based on what they themselves would want if they were in that party's exact circumstances. This type of argument is generally considered improper by judges and is often prohibited because it encourages jurors to abandon their role as objective fact-finders. Jurors are expected to base their decisions solely on the evidence presented and the applicable law, rather than on personal empathy, bias, or hypothetical self-interest.

Here are some examples of a golden rule argument:

• Property Damage Claim:

  In a lawsuit where a homeowner is suing a construction company for extensive damage to their house due to faulty workmanship, rendering it uninhabitable for months, the homeowner's lawyer might say to the jury: "Imagine your own home, your sanctuary, completely ruined and unlivable because of someone else's negligence. What would you believe is fair compensation for the disruption, the stress, and the loss of your personal space? What would you want if this happened to your family?"

  This illustrates a golden rule argument because the lawyer is asking the jurors to put themselves in the homeowner's shoes and decide the case based on their personal feelings and desires if they were the one who had lost their home.

• Breach of Contract for a Small Business:

  During a trial where a small, family-owned bakery is suing a large food distributor for breaching a critical supply contract, which led to the bakery losing its biggest client and facing potential bankruptcy, the bakery's attorney might argue: "If you had poured your life savings and years of hard work into building a business, only to have a larger corporation unfairly break a promise and threaten your livelihood, what would you expect from this court? What would be a just outcome for your dedication and struggle?"

  This is a golden rule argument because it encourages the jurors to empathize with the small business owner's personal investment and potential ruin, rather than objectively assessing the contractual terms and actual damages based on the evidence.

• Defamation and Reputation Damage:

  In a case where a public figure is suing a media outlet for defamation, claiming false reporting severely damaged their professional reputation and caused significant emotional distress, the plaintiff's lawyer might state: "Consider if false accusations were made against you, ruining your good name, jeopardizing your career, and causing immense personal anguish. What would you believe is the appropriate remedy for such a profound wrong? What would it take to restore your standing in the community?"

  This exemplifies a golden rule argument as the lawyer directly appeals to the jurors' personal feelings about their own reputation and the impact of false accusations, asking them to decide based on what they would want if their own reputation was at stake.