Whether a lawyer's invitation to the jury to imagine themselves in the shoes of an interested party in determining either liability or damages is improper, and may therefore serve as grounds for a new trial under Rule 59(a)

QUESTION PRESENTED May a lawyer tell the jury to render the verdict they would want if they were in the shoes of a party or another person with an interest in the case? This “golden rule” argument, when made as to the jury’s determination of damages, is prohibited and can justify a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) in every circuit to have considered the issue. But when a lawyer asks the jurors to determine liability by imagining themselves in the shoes of an interested party, the circuits are split on the propriety of this prejudicial practice. The question presented is: Whether a lawyer's invitation to the jury to imagine themselves in the shoes of an interested party in determining either liability or damages is improper, and may therefore serve as grounds for a new trial under Rule 59(a), as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C., Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits have concluded, or whether such argument is improper only in the context of damages, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fifth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits have held.