Building Block Approach to Closing Arguments
Over the next year, I want to take a stack of closing argument transcripts and break them down to their basic components. There are certain items that have to be argued in every closing argument. An example of some are:
- Burden of Proof – Only a preponderance of the evidence
- Empowering the jury – It’s their decision and not anyone else’s
- Personal Responsibility – That the defendant needs to take responsibility for his own actions
- Only Chance for Compensation – That the client only gets one trial and can’t come back for more money if there’s not enough.
- Intangible damages – Descriptions on how to make intangible damages real.
- Lost Wages – While it seems like a lot, it has to last a lifetime
- Life care plan – While it seems like a lot, it has to last a lifetime
In addition to those, there are a number of arguments that are frequently made on common themes. For example, corporate greed, a moment of neglect a lifetime of grief, cases involving a child, comparative negligence and others.
My thoughts are to break these arguments into their basic components and then put them in a notebook. This would leave me with three or four arguments for personal responsibility. Two to three arguments for the burden of proof and so forth.
When putting together a closing argument I could mix and match a number of these building blocks, selecting the argument that best fit the case. Once the notebook is put together, I could put together a good solid base closing argument in about 15–20 minutes. I figure I would still spend the same amount of time on the closing argument of a case, but instead of putting the bulk of my time in putting the argument together, I could spend the time on polishing, upgrading and making the closing argument shine for that case.
At the end of the case, I would see whether the specific building blocks I had started with were improved and I could upgrade the block in my notebook, or whether I had put built a new block to be stored for later use. The notebook would be refined and upgraded one closing argument at a time.
The other benefit of using a building block approach to closing arguments is that each discrete ‘block’ could be examined, polished and practiced in a minimum amount of time. For example, I could work and practice on a ‘block’ for the preponderance of the evidence in 30–45 minutes as opposed to spending several days crafting an entire closing argument.
David,
I've been using the "building block" approach for about 5 years, though I call it the "icon approach" because ultimately I've broken my most common closings down to "icon" representations. Another way of thinking of this is that I "story board" my closings. By this, I mean that my final closing "notes" might have only a few pictures that I have scetched to remind me of the argument I want to make. Many, if not all, of my arguments are based on visual analogies, so if I am talking about burden of proof and I'm using the "tipping the scale" analogy, I will have a small picture of a scale on my notes. For "what are damages?" I draw a stick figure and a "pot hole" (don't make the Plaintiff better, even the road and put her back where she started).
I find that the "icons" are never confusing, easy to fit and order on a page, and you never "get lost" trying to find the words where you left off. Also, you are never tempted to "read."
Of course,t his assumes that all of the facts of your case are in your head (as they should be), or at least on an exhibit (another reason to have lots of exhibits).
Chris Nichols
http://www.NCTrialLawBlog.com
Mr. David,
I am in school to become a lawyer. Just recently I have used this method on the cases we cover. This was a life saver for my team. I was also able to but this into a way to use for opening statements. It was also very affective.
the url below is to the school i attend
http://www.irvingisd.net/academy/
I have been reading and studying to develop additional ways to assist the jury in valuing general damages in permanent injury cases including pain and suffering, and the effect of the injury on activates. There is a great deal of reliance placed on the per diem argument. Personally I do not care for this argument in every case. I have heard others speak of the injury as a job and what salary should be paid to work that job everyday. I would be interested to hear other methods anyone has observed or used to focus the jury on valuation of this area of damages.