Of all the rules governing closing argument at trial the best known is probably the “Golden Rule”. The Golden Rule prohibits trial attorneys from making a closing argument that asks jurors to put themselves in the place of the victim or the injured person and deliver a verdict they would wish to receive if they were in that person’s position. Violation of the Golden Rule can result in an appellate court’s reversal of a favorable verdict.
In a just-released opinion out of Florida’s Third DCA (Homeowners vs. Albury) the appellate court rejected a verdict challenge distinguishing permissible arguments based on experience and common sense from prohibited Golden Rule arguments. Specifically, plaintiff’s counsel argued, in a homeowner’s insurance case, that “jurors (should) use their common sense and recall the destruction caused by Hurricane Irma in considering the persuasiveness of the defendant insurer’s expert testimony”. The court, while noting the danger of Golden Rule arguments that encourage jurors to decide a case basis of personal interest and bias rather than on the evidence, observed that it was equally established that calling upon the personal experience of jurors is not asking them to place themselves in the position of the litigants. Adding to that in the context of considering expert testimony the court further found that jurors are not bound by an expert’s testimony and can use their own common sense and experience to draw all reasonable inferences from the facts.
Mastery of the distinction between a Golden Rule argument and one based on common sense combined with experience can help win your case if you make that distinction clear to the court backed by cases like Albury.
