How Attorneys Make Closing Arguments in New Jersey Criminal Trials

How Attorneys Make Closing Arguments in New Jersey Criminal Trials

Closing arguments—the final speeches given by the prosecution and defense at the end of a criminal trial—can often make or break a case. For attorneys in New Jersey, crafting an effective closing argument requires strategic thinking, rhetorical skills, and a thorough command of the facts and law. This article provides an overview of closing arguments in New Jersey criminal trials, including key rules and strategies attorneys use to persuade juries.

The Purpose and Rules of Closing Arguments

A closing argument is an attorney’s final chance to review the trial evidence and tie it together into a coherent story, all while persuading the jury to find in their client’s favor. New Jersey Court Rules allow both the prosecution and defense a chance to give a closing argument.

There are a few key rules governing closing arguments in New Jersey:

• Attorneys may not introduce new facts that weren’t brought up during the trial itself. The purpose is to summarize and interpret existing evidence.
• Prosecutors must stick to discussing the charges and evidence against the defendant. They cannot inflame prejudices or passions against the defendant unrelated to the case.
• The prosecution gives the initial closing argument, the defense gives the second argument, and the prosecution can give a short rebuttal.

Crafting an Effective Closing Argument

Within those rules, attorneys have latitude in deciding how to craft the most persuasive closing. Here are some of the most important strategic decisions and rhetorical techniques skilled litigators use:

Theme and Theory of the Case

Experienced attorneys decide early on the most convincing narrative and theme to explain the case to a jury. Is the defense claiming misidentification or self-defense? Is the prosecution arguing premeditation or a crime of passion? This theory of the case anchors the attorney’s interpretation of the facts.

Storytelling Techniques

Trials often come down to dueling narratives. Research shows stories and examples stick in jurors’ minds better than abstract legal arguments. Skilled litigators use vivid stories, metaphors, and examples to bolster their interpretation of the facts.

Appealing to Logos, Pathos and Ethos

Attorneys use all three modes of persuasion in closing arguments. Logos means logical reasoning grounded in evidence. Pathos involves emotionally-compelling narratives. Ethos relates to projecting integrity, authority and credibility. The most effective closing arguments blend all three.

Visual Aids

Attorneys frequently use PowerPoint, video clips, photographs, diagrams, and other visuals during summations. These help simplify complex evidence and give jurors something memorable to latch onto. But they must be used carefully lest they come across as oversimplifying or manipulative.

Connecting With the Jury

Closing arguments represent an attorney’s last chance to bond with the jury. Little gestures—using jurors’ names, making eye contact, speaking conversationally—can make arguments more intimate and memorable. Of course, attorneys must avoid inappropriate familiarity crossing into pandering.

Rebuttals

In their rebuttal closing, prosecutors get the final word to try to undermine the defense’s closing argument. Effective rebuttals require anticipating the other side’s likely arguments and evidence spin. Rebuttals should re-focus the jury on the prosecution’s strongest points.

Key Differences for Defense vs. Prosecution

While both sides aim to persuasively interpret evidence, defense attorneys face a distinct challenge. Jurors naturally sympathize more with victims in criminal cases. Public misconceptions about constitutional rights and burdens of proof also prejudice defendants. As a result, defense attorneys must take extra care using narrative and rhetorical techniques to overcome jury biases.

Ethical Considerations

Closing arguments test attorneys’ ethics. In the heat of battle, it’s tempting to go beyond fair characterizations of evidence or engage in emotional appeals crossing into misconduct. New Jersey’s Rules of Professional Conduct forbid lawyers from asserting personal knowledge of facts, asserting personal opinions on credibility, or inflaming jurors’ passions or prejudices. Violations may lead to discipline or retrial.

Putting It All Together

Weaving these strategies together into a seamless closing argument is challenging. The best summations interpret evidence through a coherent theory of the case, use storytelling techniques jurors easily digest, blend logos/pathos/ethos for maximum persuasiveness, creatively incorporate visual aids, connect with jurors through effective delivery, and (for prosecutors) cleanly refute defense arguments.

Of course, even the most brilliant closing cannot save a weak case. Attorneys must lay the groundwork long before trial with thorough investigation, motions practice, and discovery. But assuming a trial’s evidence supports their client’s innocence or guilt, skilled litigators view closing arguments as critical to achieving justice.