Learn the short list of things a lawyer is not supposed to say to a jury (put yourself in the victim's place, take my word for it, send a message, the other side has to prove its innocence) so that, as a juror or an observer, you can notice them and set them aside. (Educational; the rules vary by jurisdiction.)

How to do it

1. 1Know the main categories courts treat as improper in closing argument. Golden-rule arguments ask jurors to imagine themselves or their family in a party's position. Vouching is a lawyer's personal assurance that a witness is truthful or a defendant guilty. Arguing facts not in evidence refers to things the jury never heard. Appeals to passion or prejudice invoke fear, anger, group identity, or the consequences of the verdict for the community in place of proof. Burden shifting suggests that the defendant must prove innocence or explain silence. Disparaging opposing counsel attacks the lawyer in place of the case.
2. 2When you hear one, label it silently: "That was an invitation to decide on sympathy." Naming a tactic makes it easier to discount.
3. 3Go back to the two things you were given: the evidence admitted and the judge's instructions on the law. Ask what the remark adds to either. Usually the answer is nothing.
4. 4If the judge sustains an objection or tells you to disregard something, follow that, and be aware that such instructions are hard to follow. Deliberately re-base your reasoning on the admitted evidence rather than trusting yourself to have forgotten.
5. 5In deliberation, if another juror relies on something improper, bring the discussion back to the instructions and the exhibits. If you are unsure what the law requires, the jury can send a written question to the judge.
6. 6As a reader of trial coverage, apply the same filter to press conferences and commentary, which are not bound by courtroom rules at all.

When to use it

• •You are serving on a jury and a closing argument moves you strongly without pointing to evidence.
• •A lawyer says "I believe" or "I know" about a witness's honesty.
• •An argument asks what you would want if this had happened to your child, or urges a verdict to "send a message".
• •You are following a trial in the media and want to separate evidence from advocacy.

Counters

Evidence and how strong it is

The categories come from professional rules and case law. ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(e) bars a lawyer at trial from alluding to matters unsupported by admissible evidence, asserting personal knowledge of the facts, and stating a personal opinion about the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, or the guilt or innocence of an accused. Federal Rule of Evidence 403 expresses the related evidentiary principle that even relevant material may be excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or of misleading the jury. The US Supreme Court stated the underlying standard in Berger v. United States (1935), that a prosecutor may strike hard blows but not foul ones, and addressed vouching and improper closing argument in United States v. Young (1985) and Darden v. Wainwright (1986). The psychological evidence is a reason for caution about the remedy: a meta-analysis by Steblay et al. (2006) found that judicial instructions to disregard inadmissible evidence do not reliably eliminate its influence, though they work better when the judge gives a reason. Whether teaching jurors these categories improves their decisions has not been tested. Evidence strength: settled professional and legal consensus on what is improper; experimental evidence that the problem is real; no direct evidence for this self-help remedy.

1. American Bar Association (2020). Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.4: Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel. American Bar Association
   Paragraph (e), which prohibits alluding to matters unsupported by admissible evidence, asserting personal knowledge of facts, and stating personal opinions on credibility, culpability, or guilt.
2. United States Courts (2011). Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 403: Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons. Federal Rules of Evidence (restyled 2011)
   The principle that relevant evidence may be excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or misleading the jury.
3. Supreme Court of the United States (1985). United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1. United States Reports
   The Court's discussion of improper prosecutorial vouching and personal opinion in closing argument and of how such errors are reviewed.
4. Supreme Court of the United States (1935). Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78. United States Reports
   The statement that a prosecutor may strike hard blows but is not at liberty to strike foul ones.
5. Steblay, N., Hosch, H. M., Culhane, S. E., & McWethy, A. (2006). The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 30(4), 469-492
   Meta-analytic evidence that instructions to disregard do not fully remove the influence of inadmissible material, and work better when a rationale is given.