## Facts

- Joan W., a Chicago physician in her mid-thirties, was arrested in 1978 for a traffic violation.
- Under a Chicago Police Department policy later found unconstitutional, female police employees conducted a strip search.
- Joan was required to remove her clothing and expose intimate body areas; she testified she was threatened, subjected to vulgar language, and mocked.
- Joan claimed lasting emotional distress, including reduced socializing, diminished work performance, paranoia, suicidal feelings, depression, and difficulty disrobing.
- Joan offered evidence that she had heightened sensitivity to bodily privacy and embarrassment, including longstanding discomfort with undressing and self-consciousness connected to chronic arthritis.
- The City conceded liability but contested the extent and causation of damages, emphasizing Joan’s professional advancement, lack of psychiatric treatment, and limited corroboration of social impairment.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiff’s counsel’s closing argument inviting jurors to imagine themselves in plaintiff’s position was improper “golden rule” advocacy warranting a new trial.
2. Whether the jury’s $112,000 compensatory damages award was so grossly excessive that remittitur or a new trial on damages was required.

## Decision

- The court held the “golden rule” remarks were improper but did not so prejudice the damages trial as to require a new trial; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying that relief.
- The court held the $112,000 compensatory award was excessive in light of the evidentiary record and awards in comparable strip-search cases.
- The court ordered remittitur to $75,000; if the plaintiff rejected the remittitur, the case was to be retried on damages only.
- Liability remained undisputed and intact on appeal.

## Legal Principles

- “Golden rule” arguments that ask jurors to place themselves in a party’s position are improper because they invite decisionmaking based on sympathy rather than the evidence, but reversal requires a showing of substantial prejudice in context.
- A district court’s refusal to grant a new trial based on improper closing argument is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with focus on whether the argument likely affected the outcome.
- A compensatory damages verdict may be corrected by remittitur when it is grossly excessive and falls outside a reasonable range supported by the evidence.
- In evaluating excessiveness, courts may consider the plaintiff’s proof of harm and compare verdicts in similar cases as a check on proportionality.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit rejected the City’s request for a new trial based on an improper closing argument but found the compensatory award unsupported at its level, ordering a remittitur to $75,000 (or a new damages trial if not accepted) while leaving liability undisturbed.


Joan W. v. City of Chicago, 771 F.2d 1020 (7th Cir. 1985)