Abstract: 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.
BCLR Releases Vol. LV No. 3
The Boston College Law Review is pleased to publish the May 2014 issue. Here are summaries of this issue’s Articles and Notes: […]
Volume LVI Board of Editors Announced
We are pleased to announce the Board of Editors for the 2014-2015 academic year: Volume 56 Board of Editors […]
BCLR Releases Vol. LV No. 2
The Boston College Law Review is pleased to publish the March 2014 issue. Here are summaries of this issue’s Articles and […]