On February 15, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Caudle v. District of Columbia held that golden rule arguments made in the context of liability are prejudicial and can warrant the granting of a new trial. This Comment argues that the damages-liability distinction for golden rule arguments as applied by the Second, Fifth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits is the appropriate approach, and that there should not be a per se exclusion of golden rule arguments on the issue of liability.
Craig Randall, Caudle v. District of Columbia: The Golden Rule Has No Place in a Courtroom, 55 B.C.L. Rev. E. Supp. 75 (2014), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol55/iss6/7