golden rule in Nevada

2022See Lioce v. Cohen, 124 Nev. 1, 22 , 174 P.3d 970, 984 (2008) (explaining that a golden rule argument "is an argument asking jurors to place theinselves in the position of one of the parties").

2022See Lioce v. Cohen, 124 Nev. 1, 22 , 174 P.3d 970, 984 (2008) (explaining that a golden rule argument "is an argument asking jurors to place theinselves in the position of one of the parties").

2017SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 13 (0) 1947A Under Lioce, "attorneys violate the 'golden rule' by [(1)1 asking the jurors to place themselves in the plaintiff's position or K2)] nullify the jury's role by asking it to 'send a message' to the defendant instead of evaluating the evidence." Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, Inc., 125 Nev. 349, 368-69, 212 P.3d 1068, 1082 (2009) (quoting Lioce, 124 Nev. at 20-23, 174 P.3d at 982-84 (emphasis added)).

2017SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 13 (0) 1947A Under Lioce, "attorneys violate the 'golden rule' by [(1)1 asking the jurors to place themselves in the plaintiff's position or K2)] nullify the jury's role by asking it to 'send a message' to the defendant instead of evaluating the evidence." Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, Inc., 125 Nev. 349, 368-69, 212 P.3d 1068, 1082 (2009) (quoting Lioce, 124 Nev. at 20-23, 174 P.3d at 982-84 (emphasis added)).

2022However, reviewing for plain error because appellants did not preserve this claim, I agree with the majority that reversal is not warranted on this issue because "other reasonable explanation[s] for the verdict exists." Id. at 19 , 174 P.3d at 982 (quoting Ringle v. Bruton, 120 Nev. 82, 96 , 86 P.3d 1032, 1041 (2004)).

2022However, reviewing for plain error because appellants did not preserve this claim, I agree with the majority that reversal is not warranted on this issue because "other reasonable explanation[s] for the verdict exists." Id. at 19 , 174 P.3d at 982 (quoting Ringle v. Bruton, 120 Nev. 82, 96 , 86 P.3d 1032, 1041 (2004)).

2022Compare Lioce, 124 Nev. at 22 , 174 P.3d at 984 (explaining that a golden-rule argument "is an argument asking jurors to place themselves in the position of one of the partiee), with Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560 ("Mhe ability of a defendant to pay the necessary damages injects into the damage determination a foreign, diverting, and distracting issue which may effectuate a prejudicial result.").

2022Compare Lioce, 124 Nev. at 22, 174 P.3d at 984 (explaining that a golden-rule argument "is an argument asking jurors to place themselves in the position of one of the partiee), with Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560 ("Mhe ability of a defendant to pay the necessary damages injects into the damage determination a foreign, diverting, and distracting issue which may effectuate a prejudicial result.").

2020See Summers v. State, 122 Nev. 1326, 1333 , 148 P.3d 778, 783 (2006) (we presume jurors follow the district court's instructions). 5 Second, Smith contends that the prosecutor made an improper golden rule argument and invited the jurors to consider Smith's potential future victims.

2020See Summers v. State, 122 Nev. 1326, 1333 , 148 P.3d 778, 783 (2006) (we presume jurors follow the district court's instructions). 5 Second, Smith contends that the prosecutor made an improper golden rule argument and invited the jurors to consider Smith's potential future victims.

2020See Lioce v. Cohen, 124 Nev. 1, 22 , 174 P.3d 970, 984 (2008) (An attorney may not make a golden rule argument, which is an argument asking jurors to place themselves in the position of one of the parties."), Schoels v. State, 114 Nev. 981, 988 , 966 P.2d 735, 740 (1998) (A prosecutor may not argue or suggest to the jury that the jury is or would be responsible for any future victims of the defendant.").

2020See Lioce v. Cohen, 124 Nev. 1, 22 , 174 P.3d 970, 984 (2008) (An attorney may not make a golden rule argument, which is an argument asking jurors to place themselves in the position of one of the parties."), Schoels v. State, 114 Nev. 981, 988 , 966 P.2d 735, 740 (1998) (A prosecutor may not argue or suggest to the jury that the jury is or would be responsible for any future victims of the defendant.").

2000For example, in Sabella v. Southern Pacific Co., 70 Cal.2d 311 , 74 Cal.Rptr. 534 , 449 P.2d 750, 754 (Cal.1969), the court affirmed a verdict for plaintiff despite the fact that plaintiff's counsel had accused the defense witnesses of committing perjury, appealed to the jurors' sympathies through repeated references to both the defendant's wealth and plaintiff's lack of resources, and made an improper golden rule argument.

2000For example, in Sabella v. Southern Pacific Co., 70 Cal.2d 311 , 74 Cal.Rptr. 534 , 449 P.2d 750, 754 (Cal.1969), the court affirmed a verdict for plaintiff despite the fact that plaintiff's counsel had accused the defense witnesses of committing perjury, appealed to the jurors' sympathies through repeated references to both the defendant's wealth and plaintiff's lack of resources, and made an improper golden rule argument.