OPPapers.com

Closing Conversation: Bringing Down The House

Closing Conversation: Bringing Down the House

Criminal trial advocacy, particularly closing argument, is theatrical. People have come to expect lawyers to put on a show to sell their cases at the end of trials. Advocates for both sides stand up before the jury, parade evidence, point fingers, raise voices, pound tables, and cry for justice in an effort to persuade jurors to return a verdict in their favor. Prosecutors start the charade by recounting in brutal detail the gruesome and horrific nature of the crime. They inflame passions by painting a picture of the victim's suffering. They ooze righteous indignation and outrage at the defendant and proclaim that justice can only by served by a verdict of guilt and the maximum punishment allowed by law. It is a one size fits all approach to advocacy and most prosecutors engage in this kind of showmanship in every case, regardless of the circumstances of the particular crime. Unfortunately, defense attorneys often feel obligated to meet this type of rhetoric with equal zeal for their clients, matching the prosecutors' "passion" with similar theatre. When all is said and done, the jury feels like they've seen a good show, but it has little to do with the decision they have to make. Defense lawyers often hear from jurors, "you did a great job for what you had to work with." In other words, "you put on a great show, but it didn't have anything to do with me." This type of tit for tat closing arguments, where both sides perform themselves to the point of irrelevance, works to the prosecution's favor because of the intrinsic, underlying goal jurors have of providing justice and help to victims of crime.
The much more effective approach to closing argument for the defense attorney is to answer the prosecutor's showmanship with intimate conversation. While the prosecutor is on a stage, the defense attorney is on the jury's level talking to them honestly about what they care about. While the prosecutor's...