Legal Definitions - closing argument

A closing argument is the final opportunity in a trial for a lawyer to speak directly to the judge or jury before they begin their deliberations. It occurs after all the evidence has been presented by both sides and serves as a crucial moment for each legal team to summarize their case and persuade the decision-makers to rule in their client's favor.

During a closing argument, the lawyer reviews the evidence that was introduced throughout the trial, explaining how it supports their theory of the case. They highlight key testimonies, documents, and exhibits, weaving them into a coherent narrative designed to convince the judge or jury of their client's position. While lawyers can be persuasive and employ rhetorical techniques, they are strictly limited to discussing only the evidence that has been formally presented in court. They cannot introduce new facts, appeal to prejudice, or ask the judge or jury to consider anything outside the scope of the trial's evidence.

Both sides in a trial deliver a closing argument. In a criminal case, this means the prosecutor (representing the government) and the defense attorney (representing the accused) each present one. In a civil case, the lawyer for the plaintiff (the party bringing the lawsuit) and the lawyer for the defendant (the party being sued) each make a closing argument.

Here are some examples of how a closing argument might be used:

• In a Criminal Trial for Theft: Imagine a prosecutor in a shoplifting case. During their closing argument, the prosecutor might remind the jury of the store's security footage showing the defendant placing items into a bag, the testimony of the store manager who witnessed the act, and the police report detailing the recovery of the stolen goods from the defendant's possession. The prosecutor would then explain how this combined evidence proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed theft, urging the jury to deliver a guilty verdict. This illustrates the prosecutor's final chance to connect all the pieces of evidence to establish guilt.

• In a Civil Lawsuit for Breach of Contract: Consider a business suing a supplier for failing to deliver goods on time, causing financial losses. The defendant's lawyer, in their closing argument, might emphasize email exchanges showing the plaintiff's own delays in providing necessary specifications, expert testimony indicating unforeseen supply chain issues that were beyond the defendant's control, and specific clauses in the contract that limit liability. The lawyer would argue that the plaintiff failed to prove a breach or that any delay was excusable, asking the judge (in a bench trial) to rule in favor of the defendant. This demonstrates how a lawyer uses the closing argument to refute claims and defend their client's actions based on the evidence presented.

• In a Personal Injury Case: Suppose a pedestrian is suing a driver after being hit by a car. The pedestrian's attorney, during their closing argument, would summarize the testimony of the eyewitness who saw the driver texting, the police report indicating the driver failed to yield, and the medical records detailing the pedestrian's extensive injuries and ongoing treatment. The attorney would then explain how this evidence clearly establishes the driver's negligence and justifies the specific amount of compensation being sought for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering, urging the jury to award damages to their client. This exemplifies the lawyer's final opportunity to link evidence of fault and harm directly to the requested legal remedy.