A more thorough explanation:

Definition: A golden rule argument is when a lawyer asks the jurors to put themselves in the place of the victim or injured person and deliver the verdict they would want to receive if they were in that person's position. This argument is usually made in a personal injury case where the plaintiff has suffered severe harm.

For example, if a plaintiff has suffered severe scarring, their lawyer might ask the jury to come back with the verdict they themselves would want to receive had they been disfigured in such a manner.

However, the golden rule argument is generally condemned by judges and is considered improper in some states because jurors are supposed to consider the facts of a case in an objective manner free from personal bias.

For instance, in U.S. v. Palma, the Eighth Circuit held that "A so-called 'golden rule' argument which asks the jurors to place themselves in the position of a party 'is universally condemned because it encourages the jury to 'depart from neutrality and to decide the case on the basis of personal interest and bias rather than on the evidence.'"

Overall, the golden rule argument is a controversial tactic that lawyers may use to sway the jury's decision in their favor. However, it is important for jurors to remain objective and base their verdict solely on the evidence presented in court.