Closing arguments are the culmination of trial advocacy. The plaintiff or prosecution argues first, followed by the defense. In criminal cases and many civil cases, the prosecution or plaintiff has the right to a rebuttal closing. Attorneys may reference admitted evidence, argue reasonable inferences, challenge the credibility of opposing witnesses, and explain how the evidence satisfies (or fails to satisfy) the burden of proof. However, counsel may not misstate evidence, reference matters not in the record, express personal beliefs about guilt or credibility, appeal to racial or religious prejudice, or ask jurors to place themselves in a party's position (the "golden rule" argument).
Prosecutor: "Ladies and gentlemen, you heard the defendant say he was home that night. But the cell phone records place him at the scene. The surveillance video shows his car. The victim's blood was on his shoes. His alibi doesn't hold up, and the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Defense Attorney: "Objection, Your Honor. Counsel is misstating the evidence. Dr. Williams never testified that the injury was 'certainly' caused by the accident — she said 'possibly.'" Judge: "Sustained. Counsel will accurately characterize the testimony."
Defense Attorney: "The prosecution asks you to convict based on coincidence and speculation. Reasonable doubt is not a technicality — it is a shield that protects each of us. If you cannot say you are firmly convinced of guilt, you must acquit."
Students often believe they can say anything in closing argument since it is "argument." In reality, closing arguments are bounded: counsel cannot reference evidence not admitted, cannot state personal beliefs about witness credibility ("I believe the defendant is lying"), and cannot make "golden rule" arguments asking jurors to imagine themselves in the plaintiff's situation.
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935)
Reversed a conviction due to improper prosecutorial closing argument, establishing the standard that prosecutors must refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction.
Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986)
Established the test for whether prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument warrants reversal: whether the remarks so infected the trial with unfairness as to deny due process.
Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 (1975)
Held that complete denial of the opportunity for closing argument in a criminal case violates the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
What can you say in a closing argument?
In a closing argument, attorneys may summarize the evidence presented, draw reasonable inferences from that evidence, argue credibility of witnesses, and urge the jury to reach a specific verdict. Attorneys may also discuss jury instructions and how the law applies to the facts. They may not reference evidence not admitted at trial or state personal beliefs about the case.
How long is a closing argument?
Closing argument length varies by case complexity and court rules. In federal court, judges typically set time limits ranging from 30 minutes to several hours per side. Complex cases may allow longer arguments. State courts have varying practices, with some imposing strict time limits and others allowing more flexibility.
Who gives the closing argument last?
The party bearing the burden of proof — the plaintiff in civil cases or the prosecution in criminal cases — typically has the right to deliver the final closing argument (rebuttal). This means the prosecution or plaintiff speaks first, then the defense, then the prosecution or plaintiff gives a rebuttal closing.
An opening statement is the first substantive presentation each party makes to the jury, providing a...
The burden of proof refers to a party's obligation to prove the facts necessary to support their cla...
Jury instructions (also called jury charges) are the legal directions given by the judge to the jury...
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that requires an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact...
