Argumentum ad Vericundiam

United States v. Howard

Federal criminal information was filed in district court against Ludenia Howard, representing
Stokes Fish Company, for violating the Federal Black Bass Act. The Act forbids any person to transport
black bass or other fish across state lines if doing so is prohibited by the laws of the state. In Florida,
such issues are governed by the regulations of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. The
district court held that the regulations were not “laws” of Florida under the meaning of the Black Bass
Act and quashed the information. The United States appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

This case is a perfect example of Argumentum ad Vericundiam. The court found the following
statements in the prosecutor's final rebuttal to be an "unwarranted appeal to the authority and prestige
of the United States Attorney's Office.

"We have not tried to deceive you, ladies and gentlemen. We have tried to bring out the truth,
and I can tell you ... when I stood up, took my oath to be an Assistant United States Attorney, it
was one of the proudest days of my life, and I am not going to jeopardize it with misconduct or
deception. My job is to bring out the truth and see that justice is done in this case, and that is
what we have been doing in this case. "

The court was troubled by the prosecutor's appeal to the authority of the prosecutor's office, and
perhaps of the United States, to add force to his argument. However, the court concluded that the
statements were understandable in light of defense counsel's ad hominem attacks on the prosecutor.

HASTY GENERALIZATION

Leake v. Casati

John and Joe Leake owned property as tenants in common. John Leake conveyed his property
to Casati, the owner of an adjacent tract of land. Joe Leake refused to sell his interest to Casati,
and Casati sued for partition by sale. The chancellor in the case, after determining that partition
in kind would be subject to the county subdivision ordinance, ruled that the partition would be
impracticable and inconvenient. The chancellor ordered the sale of Joe Leake's interest. The
court, refusing to find an implied legislative intent to deprive the court of its power to do equity
between the parties, ruled that the subdivision ordinance did not apply to the court's exercise
of its power to partition land in kind. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the lower court.
This case presents a purer example of the fallacy of hasty generalization. At issue in Leake was
whether a local subdivision ordinance applied to a division of real property ordered by the
court. The county argued that if the subdivision ordinance was inapplicable, then all local
ordinances were also inapplicable. The generalization that all local ordinances are inapplicable
because one specific ordinance is inapplicable is an exceptionally hasty generalization. The
court recognized the fallacy and concluded: "[I]t does not follow that those who become
owners of the resulting parcels will be immune to valid laws regulating land use.”