As discussed above, one should not rely upon the inspiration of the moment to deliver a closing argument. A winning summation is usually the result of meticulous, painstaking preparation done well in advance of the actual delivery of the remarks. In order to insure that such preparation is not wasted, obviously, it is necessary that counsel utilize a structure in preparing his\/her outline of the legal and factual issues counsel wishes to discuss with the jury.
\nThe following elements should be present in your remarks: 1) an interesting introduction to the summation; 2) a discussion of what happened; 3) a discussion of the law and the burden of proof and why; 4) a discussion of damages; and 5) an appropriate peroration or conclusion.
\nIn short, the closing argument should not be rambling but should be structured with a logical flow to it and with a content appropriate to the facts and legal issues involved in the case. While content many times is not as important as the actual delivery of the summation, nonetheless it is obviously important. Thus, for the content to be delivered in an effective manner, the communication style must be clear and concise and must be organized in such a manner that the jury can follow it as it is delivered. When counsel uses the \u201cecho effect,\u201d uses demonstrative exhibits, uses the language of the case and gives his remarks a structure, the essential elements of a winning summation are present.
\n1)\tAn Interesting Introduction
\nWith respect to the recommended structure, as indicated, counsel should initially deliver an interesting introduction to the summation. In short, the jury should hear an argument at the very beginning of the summation which captures its attention. It is recommended here that the beginning of summation mirror and\/or have an \u201cecho\u201d effect of what hopefully was an interesting opening statement.
\nIn a hypothetical case involving a high speed police chase, counsel for the plaintiff might give an opening statement that would read as follows:
\nThis is a case about a police chase that should never have occurred and that resulted in the death of my client\u2019s twenty-two (22) year old daughter, whom we contend was killed by a reckless disregard for proper police procedure by the officer involved. This case is also about the failure of the police officer and his employer, The ___________ Police Department, to acknowledge their role in this tragic loss. The evidence will show that they did have a role, a substantial role, in causing the death of this young lady and as you will hear, there will be no evidence that the victim of this tragic incident was in no way guilty of any wrongdoing herself. She was completely and totally innocent at the time of her death and lost her life partly because the police officer and his employer recklessly disregarded proper police procedures concerning the initiation and continuation of an objectively indefensible high speed pursuit.
\nIf this kind of opening statement were given, hopefully the jury\u2019s curiosity was piqued and their interest elevated at the very beginning of the case. Now, during summation, counsel should again describe the issue in such a manner as to get the jury\u2019s interest and maintain it. Echo back to what was said by using the same terms, repeating the same themes. Stay on message at the beginning, but do so with impact.
\n2)\tA Discussion of What Happened and Why
\nAfter gaining the jury\u2019s interest, counsel should then proceed to a discussion of what happened and why the defendant is liable. Here, counsel does not want to retry the entire case. Rather, counsel wants to discuss most important the facts that entitles his client to a verdict. It may be helpful to refer briefly to the pleadings and the Answer of the defendant. If you note a material fact that was denied in the Answer, this should be mentioned and then the jury should be reminded that the plaintiff has proven that the asserted fact is true.
\nWhile you should never go witness by witness in a recitation of what you proved, you should summarize the testimony and evidence offered by offering a cohesive unified theory of the case. I do not recommend that you use the term \u201ctheory of the case,\u201d but I do recommend that you present your theory in a summarized manner tying together the most important facts and evidence supporting your claims for recovery<\/p>\n