Quote of the Day - A trial is like a jig-saw puzzle and closing argument is when the lawyers put the pieces together.
Experts, Closing Argument And Final Wrap-up
It's the last day of a whirlwind, six-day, eight-hours-a-day class on how a lawsuit goes to trial, and the students are understandably worn down. Once they get done in class, they go home to read a hundred or so pages of Mauet's Trial Techniques as well as the fictional case files and then prepare outlines of examination and exercises for the next day. They're putting in 10-16 hour days, if they're doing it right.
Just like a real trial.
Today we cover how to qualify a witness as an expert and have the judge accept the witness as an expert to testify and educate the jury. There are many variations to the technique, but here's a slightly edited one from Forensic Magazine that demonstrates the technique appropriately:
QUALIFYING QUESTIONS FOR THE EXPERT WITNESS
Like most other aspects of trial work, it's not a matter of rocket science to qualify an expert. There are, however, other issues that may trip you up, such as whether the subject matter of the witness's testimony is a proper subject for expert testimony, and whether the science is generally relied upon by those in the same field. But those are substantive subjects, not techniques, and beyond the scope of this course.
That's it for testimony, exhibits, witnesses and the like. As I laid out in the beginning when you "told 'em what you're going to tell them," you've wrapped up the second section of your sermon: you "told 'em."
Now it's time to present closing arguments. How? That's a subject of great debate. Generally, you continue to follow the sermon format, recognizing that you're in the third phase: "tell 'em what you told 'em."
But it's not that easy. It's likely there are events and new facts that came up during the trial that you didn't anticipate in the beginning, and you've got to make sure what happened fits into your theory of the case. You must also deal with any evidence you told the jury about in your opening that didn't get in. It all has to make sense to the jury, or your case may go down the tubes.
You also have to persuade. It's time to pull out those adjectives and adverbs you weren't allowed to put into your opening statement.
You must also discredit the opposing side's theory of the case, and explain it away in your closing argument. Some lawyers make rhetorical challenges to the other side, and "dare" opposing counsel to answer the question left hanging. It's a dangerous tactic that sometimes backfires. Sometimes it wins cases.
There's no right or wrong way to make a closing argument. Most of all, it has to fit your style. You can't get up and be indignant about the other side unless you truly are. You have to be yourself. But it's not really about the lawyer (unless the lawyer gets in the way).
It's about the facts, credibility, the evidence and the law in the jury instructions. You weave it together to match your theory of the case. Then you ask for the remedy sought by your client.
You're in sales, remember? You have to close the deal.
There are several technical procedural elements present in any trial, such as Motions in Limine and Judgment on the Pleadings before trial, objections, hearsay and best evidence rule, interlocutory writs, motion to exclude witnesses and media gag orders during trial and Motion for Nonsuit, a Directed Verdict and a JNOV, or Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. They're an entire set of classes in themselves, and more than I have time to cover here. But if you're going to trial, study up.
There you go. Around the courtroom in six days. Ready to do it on your own?