Differences Between Opening Statements & Closing Arguments

Each party has the right to receive a jury trial after talking directly with the jury and before presenting the evidence

Opening the sentence is limited to the facts outlined at the beginning of the exam. This is basically a scene for the jury to provide a general roadmap for the way all political parties introduce them to the example of core conflict and expand the trial We have the opportunity to set. If there are no strategic reasons to do so, the parties should be juries Their witnesses, they are related, related to each other, no one in the witness stand's expectations, how the stakeholders are located . The statement of opening is as follows: "Ms. Smith witnessed the testimony but she saw Mr. Johnson to do X," the evidence that the defendant did not Y "It is included. The initial statement needs to be as convincing as possible, but should not include arguments. They came at the end of the trial

After the jury to listen to the evidence of the fact of the only incident, the parties are allowed to try to convince its overall importance. At the end of the discussion, the party is an opportunity to explain them reminding key evidence to the jury and persuade them to take its advantageous position. At this point, the parties took their own opinion to promote the reliability of the witness comment, and why to promote the jury how to believe in the various parts of the puzzle for the charming whole In their favor with their favor to using virtual analogs freely to express

There are important differences between the start and end of the statement's parameters. In his initial statement, the parties are limited to the statement of evidence: ("Witness to prove the occurrence of event X"). With the last argument, it is free for the parties to prove: 'We know clearly the responsibility for the case Deciding who is convincing Witness testimony, knowing from the incident where X happened To be like. "

The end of the discussion - After defending the prosecution who presented all the evidence, the parties can draw a conclusion. Similar to the opening statements - - At the end of the argument, we will provide the last opportunity to talk to judges and jurors for lawyers. Prosecutors generally summarized the evidence presented, focused on prosecution of the most useful projects, and first heard the story. The defense lawyer talks next time. Defense attorney pointed out the defect prosecutor of the example when putting together the defense's strongest points in the usual case. The prosecution has the last chance to talk about next

There are important differences between the start and end of the statement's parameters. In his initial statement, the parties are limited to the statement of evidence: ("Witness to prove the occurrence of event X"). With the last argument, it is free for the parties to prove: 'We know clearly the responsibility for the case Deciding who is convincing Witness testimony, knowing from the incident where X happened To be like. "

Rule 3.4 (e) between the beginning and the end of the argument does not prove the phase of the lawyer, the trial, which seems to be related documents, "delusions" mainly. "A lawyer of reasonably relevant content can not think of anything, there is no acceptable evidence to support it" - - The terms of use of the future tense have a lawyer for the initial statement It seems. Normally occurring during the beginning or the end of the discussion, explicitly restricted to attorneys sentences 3.4 (E)

Destroying the ethical limits of true witnesses: how modern ethical rules can not prevent real witnesses from being destroyed by unethical means