Sidney

Actually, our research has found that very few jurors are swayed during closing argument. Thus, it should really not be argument at all. Or, a minimum of argument. The true purpose of closing argument is to arm the jurors on your side with the ammo they need to fight off the arguments of jurors who may be against you. By closings, most jurors don’t want to listen to much more. So first, the close has to be a call to listen (“When you go back into that jury room, you’ll have two jobs [they think they only have one]; first, to decide on the questions the judge is going to give you; second, to explain to your fellow jurors why you feel the way you do.”) The weaknesses of the case can be put forth in the form of arguments that opposing jurors will use; then give the favorable jurors an answer (“If someone says [weakness], be sure to tell them [thematic response]“). Ultimately the close becomes a primer on how to deliberate for your side. We’ve found that lawyers seldom pursuade jurors in closing; we’ve also found that fellow jurors often do.

My best,

Bob