Closing Arguments
In addition to the opening statement, a closing argument can be a dramatic part of a trial. It provides a conclusion for all of the evidence presented. The whole trial appears to be building to that moment. But they are not off-the-cuff ruminations about life and justice. Strict rules govern how they work and good lawyers prepare them meticulously. They also differ in key ways from the opening statement.
Why should you read this post about closing arguments?
You think this may be this blog’s last post after an improbable 4+ year run.
You’d like to criticize a move for being unrealistic.
You’re making TikTok videos based on biog posts and you need content to interpret.
Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monologist#/media/File:Toni_Mata_monologue_in_Sabadell_02.JPG
A Summary of the Evidence
While an opening statement presents a preview of the evidence the lawyers expect to present, a closing statement presents a summary of the evidence that the fact finder actually saw. As a result, the lawyers need to be careful that every fact they cite is to a fact that was actually in evidence.
A trial may drag on for awhile, and so the closing statement gives a lawyer the chance to get the fact finder to recall important evidence from the beginning of the trial. And to assign some weight to the evidence: a witness who spoke for three days may not be more important than the one who spoke for an hour, and so the closing statement lets the lawyer spend more time on the important details and convey to others the relative importance of evidence.
One thing that I find persuasive in closing statements is to cite quotes. If there is a transcript available, I may put up on a screen the word-for-word transcription of important testimony to remind the fact finder what was said.
Some Argumentation
While an opening statement is not the place for argument, a closing argument is a place for arguments. The lawyer can give reasons why some evidence may not be credible or why a jury should assess the weight of evidence a certain way.
It also provides an opportunity for a lawyer to directly confront the arguments and themes advanced by his or her opponent. These themes may not have been fully developed in time to address them head on in the opening statement, but by the closing statements, counsel can make their case about why their opponent’s arguments are wrong.
But as with the opening statement, the closing statement argumentation cannot be based on the lawyer’s own personal feelings. So a lawyer cannot say things like “this is the worst case I have seen in all of my years of practice” or “I don’t think this evidence is persuasive.”
One standard thing that lawyers do is to emphasize what their burden is. A defense lawyer may emphasize that she does not have any burden and that, if the jury is not convinced, they must rule in favor of her client. A plaintiff’s lawyer may remind the jury that her burden is not “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but, if applicable, a mere preponderance of the evidence.
Objections and Corrections
Lawyers may object to closing statements, which may disrupt the flow of the presentation. Often, a judge will hear objections after the statements are over and then make her own corrective statements to the finder of fact afterwards, such as “disregard this argument.”
Addressing the Jury as People
A smart closing statement will begin with gratitude to the finder of fact for sitting through the trial. This may also encourage them to take their work seriously and do the work necessary to understand and confirm the lawyer’s argument.
A lawyer may also ask the jury to consider the ramifications of their decision not just on the parties to the case, but on the justice system as a whole. This may influence the jury to make a decision that is favorable to one side, even if that side isn’t the most sympathetic. For example, a lawyer for a defendant may say that a verdict for the plaintiff may help one person get rich at the expense of a big corporation, but it would mean that lots of plaintiffs could do the same thing, which would lead to higher insurance rates and companies going out of business.