During closing argument, inevitably counsel will want to discuss the law and apply the law to the facts, and this is where visuals can prove to be most valuable. For example, in a first-degree murder case, a prosecutor will want to explain what premeditation and deliberation means, and the prosecutor will read the relevant portion of the court’s instructions to the jury. To explain what the instruction means in terms jurors can understand and relate to, the prosecutor could utilize this visual.
The lawyers will discuss the credibility of the witnesses during in closing. If the prosecution’s witnesses have prior convictions, the defense could create and display a visual like this to the jury.
Pistol whipping a priest is pretty bad.
Here is a chart that you could adapt to your case as a visual aid to discuss the credibility of the witnesses. In the left column are the parties witnesses names and on the right the factors stated in the court’s jury instructions that the jury may consider in determining the credibility of the witnesses.
When discussing circumstantial evidence, you will decide what analogy you wish to use. Common ones are the cookie jar with cookies missing and the child with cookie crumbs on the face. Although no one saw the child take the cookie, the circumstantial evidence is clear.
Or you may like the snow analogy. There was no snow on the ground when you went to sleep, but the ground is covered with it when you wake up. You conclude based on the circumstantial evidence that it snowed during the night.
Or, you may like the Robinson Caruso foot prints in the sand one. You choose. A visual will drive the point home that circumstantial evidence can be powerful proof.
Now, watch defense counsel in the documentary Murder on a Sunday Morning use three visuals to argue that the circumstantial evidence proves that the defendant did not commit the murder. Defense counsel used the defendant's appearance, a diagram of the area and a Nautica t-shirt as visual aids.
No comments:
Post a Comment