mock trial closing statement

Your Honour, at the beginning of the trial, we told you you would hear evidence of Pat O Brien committing an assault upon Toby Fantasia causing bodily harm. You heard the testimonies of Fantasia and Chris Ugarte that told you that Fantasia, in the lawful execution of his duties, was assaulted by Pat O Brien. Mr. Ugarte also testified to seeing Fantasia being punched as he was attempting to arrest Fredi Friedbrain, who Fantasia told the court he suspected of violating his parole. In the defendant, Pat O Brien's, testimony, he said he voluntarily chose to interfere in the arrest although he recognized the risk due to the location and the appearance of Fredibrain and Fantasia, who was undercover. O Brien testified that he voluntarily tackled the Fantasia while able to perceive potential risks. In turn, Fantasia could not execute his duties. Ugarte, a constable who was part of his undercover team, had to interfere to stop O Brien from attacking Fantasia further. However, at that time, Fredibrain who already escaped. Despite O Brien's testimony that he was unaware Fantasia was a peace officer, he could, as a reasonable person, be able to identity danger and avoid it. By failing to act with reason, he committed a wrongful act. He stopped Fantasia, an undercover officer, from making an arrest. The defendant took action, he applied force, knowing the circumstances, and was in a state of mind where he could anticipate the effect of his act(ion). We, the prosecution, feel this is enough to convict Pat O Brien of assault causing bodily harm. He not only committed the act, he committed the act with a criminal intent. He intended to stop the arrest. Therefore, we ask for the defendant, Pat O Brien, to be found guilty. In the name of law enforcers, we insist on a verdict of guilty. Thank you, your honour.

For both prosecutor and defense counsel, the closing argument affords an important chance to review the testimony and exhibits that have been admitted during the trial, as well as to argue for any inferences that they may wish the jury to draw from the evidence. Closing arguments are supposed to be argumentative, and appeals to common sense, attacks on the motives and credibility of unfavorable witnesses, and rather emotional pleas for a certain result are common. Closings also provide the opportunity to remind the jury of how the evidence inter-twines with the law, and a good closing argument will weave together favorable evidence and the jury instructions that the lawyer giving the closing believes will support a favorable verdict.

an argument that the evidence at trial clearly raises a reasonable doubt would be proper.

Another, perhaps obvious, restriction on final arguments is that the arguments in closing must be tied to the evidence developed at trial. Inferences and conclusions from the evidence at trial can be argued quite freely. The lawyers’ closing arguments or summations discuss the evidence and properly drawn inferences.

The judge usually indicates to the lawyers before closing arguments begin which instructions he or she intends to give the jury. In their closing arguments the lawyers can comment on the jury instructions and relate them to the evidence.

The lawyer for the plaintiff or government usually goes first. The lawyer sums up and comments on the evidence in the most favorable light for his or her side, showing how it proved what he or she had to prove to prevail in the case.

After that side has made its case, the defense then presents its closing arguments.

answers statements made in argument

points out defects in their case and sums up the facts favourable to his/her client

The role of an opening statement helps the attorney tell the jury what information they are trying to present or prove, The closing statement allows them to tell the jury that they have done just that. In addition they use this information to show the other side has not provided the information needed to win their case.

a closing statement usually references the opening, saying something like,"ladies and gentlemen of the jury, remember at the beginning of the trial we told you you would hear x,y,z evidence which would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that castro is guilty of the crime [charged] during the trial i have observed each of you carefully listening to the evidence presented. you heard the testimony of dr. splatt, who presented the slides of photos taken of the cuban base on 333 which showed ,,,," essentially you want to remind them of the evidence they saw and how it proved your case. you reinforce the idea that you did exactly what you told them in opening (you are to be trusted and always speak truth is the message you send) and it is always a good idea to remind the jury of the evidence and show them how it proves your case. you may want to make a brief statement about the evidence presented by the defense. " you heard the testimony of ms. grudge, a student of dr. splatt [voice inflection indicating her inferior qualifications to your guy] who told you that in her opinion the slides were of av missiles and not bv missiles as dr splatt testified. but, i remind you that dr. splatt testified on rebuttal that his student,ms grudge, was mistaken because she failed to note the squiggly thing on the pic clearly marking them as bv missiles. you also remember dr splatt's testimony that it is essentially irrelevant as to whether av or bv missile as both capable of delivering nuclear warhead to us shores of sufficient strength to wipe out the eastern seaboard" unlike opening statement, closing statement can be argumentative. why you think your side is the side of angels and their evidence is hogwash. this is the time for a lawyer's persuasive skills. some lawyers like to engage in television theatrics in closing, but i always thought it best to present a good workmanlike recitation of the facts without melodrama. at the same time, you do want the jury, who may have slept through some key piece of evidence, to listen to what you say, so your presentation should be compelling. you will remind the jury that the burden of proof in the case is...and what that means (you may have done some education of them on this point in opening, or even during voire dire. you will say you are sure they will agree the evidence at the trial (which you've just reminded them of) does prove beyond a reasonable doubt that castro did on 333 .....the state has met its burden and i respectfully request that you return a verdict of guilty. you may want to refer the jury to the jury instructions the judge will give them, making sure to clarify any instruction you think may be problematic if they misunderstand. thank you, your honour

Since you are the prosecution, I would discuss your burden of proof (for a criminal case it's "beyond a reasonable doubt") and how you have met that burden through the testimony of your witnesses.