證據(jù)法課前英語閱讀資料

PAGE.PAGE38證據(jù)法課前閱讀資料Pro.RonaldAllen（4月19日至4月22日）TOC\o"1-4"\h\z\u證據(jù)法課前閱讀資料 0Pro.RonaldAllen 0（4月19日至4月22日） 04月19日第二章全部(原文91-138) 0ChapterTwo 0JURORDECISION-MAKING 33Attribute 334月20日原文第一章（pp.1-90） 38CHAPTERONE 394月21日ChapterThreeRelevancy,ProbativeValue,andtheRule403Dangers(原文139-174) 138 1514月19日第二章全部(原文91-138)ChapterTwo_____________________TheProcessofProof:HowTrialsareStructuredAsyoubeginyourstudyofthelawofevidence,itcanbeusefultoputyourselfintheroleofthetriallawyertryingtopresentacasepersuasivelytothejury.Thisnecessarilyrequiresyoutoimagineatthesametimehowthetrialprocessappearstothejurors.Itisabewilderingmixtureofthefamiliarandtheunfamiliar.Tobeginwith,mostlitigatedeventsinvolveconventionalhumanaffairs.AlthoughtheprisonsettingintheJohnsoncaseisoutsidethepersonalexperienceofmostpeople,thecrucialquestionfordecisionissimplyhowafightcameabout,whichreduces,asistypical,tothequestionofwhomtobelieve--here,theinmateortheguards.Althoughtheissuesthattypifylitigationareusuallywithingeneralexperience,thedecisionmakingmethodologydiffersradicallyfromthemannerinwhichanordinarycitizenmakesdaytodaydecisions.Thetrialsettingisunusual,perhapsonoccasionmystifying,andoftenintimidatingforjurors.Indeed,athemerunningthroughthetrialprocessthatyoumayhavealreadydetectedistheinsulationofthejuryfrommuchofwhathappensduringtrial.Although,historically,jurieswereallowedtodecideissuesoflawaswellasfactBevenaslateastheendofthe19thcenturyintheU.S.Bthemodernjurydecidesonlyfactualissues.Therefore,virtuallyalllegaldiscussionBincludingthepropersubstantiveandprocedurallawtobeappliedtothecase,andwhetherevidenceshouldbeadmittedorexcludedBoccursoutsidethehearingorpresenceofthejury.Relativelybrieflegaldiscussionsinthemidstoftrialmaybeconductedinasidebarconference,inwhichthelawyersandjudgetalkinlowvoicessonottobeheardbythejurors.Longerdiscussionsareheldeitherinthejudge=schambers,or,ifinthecourtroom,attimeswhenjurorsarenotpresent.Thisthemeofjuryinsulationalsorunsthroughtheevidencecourse,because,toalargedegree,therulesofevidencefocusdirectlyonthequestionofwhatevidencethejurywillbeallowedtohear.Thepolicyimplicationsofmostevidencerulesarethereforebasedonsomeone=sanswertothequestion:whatistheeffectonthefairresolutionofdisputesofallowingajurytoconsiderthistypeofinformation?A.TheAdversarySystemtc\l1"A.TheAdversarySystemTherulesstructuringlitigation,includingtherulesofevidence,arederivedfrom,andimplement,thedominanttheoryofdisputeresolutioninthiscountry,knownastheadversarysystem.Adversepartieseachpresentaself-servingversionofthetruthtoapresumablydisinterestedfactfinder,judgeorjury,whichhearstheevidencethepartiespresentanddecidesinadisinterestedfashionwhatactuallyhappened,andthuswhatverdictisappropriate.Theadversarialprocess,inturn,isderivedfromaconceptionoftheappropriateroleofgovernmentintheresolutionofdisputesbetweenprivateindividualsandbetweenthestateandanindividual.Thegovernmenthastheobligationtoprovideafairanddisinterestedforumfortheimpartialresolutionofdisputes;andforthemostpartthatisallthegovernmenthasanobligation,oraright,todo.Evenincriminalcases,thecourtsstandapartfromtheprosecution,treatingtherepresentativesofthesovereignasthoughtheywererepresentingaprivateparty.Thepartiesareresponsibleforinvestigatingthecase,preparingthecasefortrial,andinlargemeasurecontrollingthepresentationofevidenceattrial.Inthiscountry,manybelievethatadversarialinvestigationandpresentationofevidenceismorelikelytoyieldaverdictconsistentwiththetruththanisaprocessmoredominatedbyatribunal.Thisconceptionoftheroleofthegovernmentintheresolutionofdisputesisnotuniversallyshared.IntheAinquisitorial@systemsofmanyWesternEuropeancountriesdisputesarenot"private"matterstotheextentthattheyareintheUnitedStates,andtheadjudicativetribunalofteninvolvesitselfactivelyininvestigation,andcontrolsthetrialprocessmuchmorethanthelitigantsdo.Thosewhofavorcontinentalsystemsareinclinedtotheviewthatcontrolbyadisinterestedtribunalwillleadtolessabuseandmanipulationoftheevidence,thusincreasingthechancesthatjudgmentsconsistentwiththetruthwillemerge.Foradiscussionoftheseandrelatedmatters,seeMirjanDamaska,TheFacesofJusticeandStateAuthority(1986);MirjanDamaska,EvidentiaryBarrierstoConvictionandTwoModelsofCriminalProcedure,121U.Pa.L.Rev.506(1973);JohnLangbein,TheGermanAdvantageinCivilProcedure,52U.Chi.L.Rev.823(1985);RonaldJ.Allen,StefanK?ck,KurtRiechenberg,andD.TobyRosen,TheGermanAdvantageinCivilProcedure:APleaforMoreDetailsandFewerGeneralitiesinComparativeScholarship,82Nw.U.L.Rev.705(1988);MirjanDamsaka,EvidenceLawAdrift(1997).B.TheRolesoftheTrialParticipantstc\l1"B.TheRolesoftheTrialParticipantsAlthoughprobablyquitefamiliartoyoufromfictionalandreal-lifecourtroomdramas,thewell-definedrolesofparticipantsinatrialareworthbrieflyreviewing:Witnessesarepeoplewithknowledgeofoutofcourteventswhoarecalledontorevealthatknowledgeincourt,underoath,infrontofthejudge,jury,andlitigants.Thejury(meaningeachofitsmembers)usesitssensestoperceiveinformationinthecourtroomanditsreasoningcapacitytoevaluatethatinformationandtheargumentsofcounsel.Jurorsareexpectedtocometoconclusionsaboutdisputedfactsinthecasewithoutbringingtobearanyoutsideorfirsthandknowledgeoftheirown:typically,theyknownothingaboutthecasebeforehand,and(asintheJohnsoncase,page[***6]),areinstructedbythejudgenottoinvestigatethefactsontheirown.Asistypical,thejuryinstructionstheJohnsoncasedidnotgivethejuryanyguidanceaboutwhatitsreasoningprocessshouldbe,otherthantodefineAinference@andAcircumstantialevidence,@andtoruleoutcertainAirrational@factors:emotions,thenumberofwitnessesonaside,chance,orthedrawingoflots.Pages[***95,98,and101]supra.Theadvocatesprovideinformationtothejurythroughtheuseofwitnesses,documents,andotherexhibits.ThejudgeinJohnsonThejudgeinJohnsoninstructedthejurythat"[e]videnceconsistsoftestimonyofwitnesses,writings,materialobjects,oranythingpresentedtothesensesandofferedtoprovetheexistenceornonexistenceofafact."Page[***96].Thejudgecontrolsthetrialprocessbysettinglimits,primarilypursuanttotherulesofevidence,ontheadvocates'proofintheinterestsofrationalityofresults,ofsocialandmoralvalues,andofefficiency.Thejudgehaspowertomakeallthetrialparticipantsconformtotheirrolesincourtroombehavioranddecorum.Inaddition,thejudgemaycallwitnessesandmayquestionwitnesseswhethercalledbythecourtornot.SeeFRE611and614.Butthejudgeisnotsupposedtocontrolthecontentortheoverallpresentationoftheadvocates'cases.Thus,judgeintheJohnsoncaseinstructedthejurythatneithersidehadtoproduceallwitnesseswhomighthaveknowledgeofthefacts,orpresentallobjectsordocumentsthatmightbementioned.Page[***97]supra.Throughoutthiscourseyoushouldaskwhetherthejudgeshouldhavethepowertokeepknowledgeaboutthedisputedfactsfromthejury.Anoteonbenchtrials:Therulesofevidencehavebeencreatedandshapedovertimewiththejuryinmindasthefactfinder.However,manytrialsareheldwithoutajury.Whilethepartiesinmostcriminalcasesandmanycivilclaimsfordamageshaveaconstitutionalrighttotrialbyjury,thepartiessometimeswaivethatrightandagreetoatrythecasetothejudgewithoutajury.Inaddition,manycivilcases--primarily,thoseseekingso-calledAequitable@relief,suchasinjunctions--aretriedbeforeajudgewithoutajury.InsuchAbenchtrials,@thejudgeactsnotonlyasthedecisionmakeronpointsoflawandadmissionorexclusionofevidence,butalsoasthesolefactfinder,weighingtheevidence.AsimilarsituationispresentedbyAevidentiaryhearings@:pre-trialproceedings(suchasapreliminaryhearinginacriminalcase)inwhichwitnessesarecalledtotestify.Therulesofevidencetypicallyapplyinbenchtrialsandevidentiaryhearings,butbecausenojuryispresent,theapplicationoftherulesmayberelaxedsomewhat.Thetheoryisthatajudge,duetoexperienceandprofessionaltraining,candisregardinadmissibleevidencefarmoreeasilyandeffectivelythanajury.Therefore,erroneousadmissionorexclusionofevidenceisthoughttobelessproblematic;andthejudgecancouchfindingsinsuchawayastoclaimthatthedecisionwouldnotbeaffectedbyaparticulardoubtfulevidentiaryruling.C.TheStructureoftheTrialtc\l1"C.TheStructureoftheTrial1.Pretrialmotionstc\l2"1.PretrialmotionsTrialsusuallybeginwithAmotionsinlimine@(pronouncedAinlim-in-ay,@meaningAatthethreshold@).Thesearemotionsmadebythepartiestoobtainrulingsonanticipatedevidentiaryproblems.Partiesanticipatingtheintroductionofproblematicevidencebytheiradversariesmakemotionsinliminetoexcludethatevidence,thoughmotionsinliminecanbeusedtogetapre-trialrulingonanyevidentiaryquestion.Motionsinlimineareoftenmadeinwriting,withshortsupportingbriefs,andarguedoutsidethepresenceofthejury.Tacticalconsiderationswilltypicallydrivecounsels=decisionsonwhethertofilemotionsinlimine.Forexample,acriminaldefendant,suchasJohnson,maywanttotestifyonlyifthejurywillnotlearnofhispriorcriminalconvictions.Inordertomakeaninformeddecisionaboutwhethertotestify,thedefendantcouldfileamotioninlimineaskingthatthepriorconvictionsbeexcludedfromevidence.Thiswouldeliminateuncertaintyastowhetherthedefendant=spriorfelonieswillcomebeforethejury.Ifnomotioninlimineweremade,defensecounselwouldhavetowaituntilheheardthequestion,AIsn=titafact,Mr.Johnson,thatyouwereconvictedofrapein1981?@,andthenobject.Eveniftheobjectionweresustained,thejury,havingheardthequestion,mightneverthelessbelievetheprosecutorhadagoodfaithbasisforassertingthatthedefendanthadsuchaconviction.Butifdefensecounselweretomakeasuccessfulmotioninlimine,theprosecutorwouldbeinstructedaheadoftimebythejudgenottoasksuchaquestionatall.2.JurySelectiontc\l2"2.JurySelectionFollowingmotionsinlimine,thejuryselectionprocessbegins.Juryselectionvariesbothintheprocessforselectionandthenumberofjurorsempanelled,dependingonthetypeofcaseandthejurisdiction;anywherefrom6to12jurorsmayberequired.Infederalcourt,twelvejurorssitincriminaltrialsandsixinciviltrials.ThejuryselectionprocessisfoundedonthebeliefthattrialsaremorelikelytoresultinanaccurateverdictBassigningliabilityorblameonlywherewarrantedbythefactsBbyhavingcognitivelycompetent,disinterestedjurors.Consequently,theprocessallowspartiestoobjecttopotentialjurorswhoareincompetent,whohaveafinancialoremotionalinterestinthecase,orwhocannotputasideanypreconceptionsaboutthecasetheymayhaveinordertodecideitbasedontheevidenceproducedattrial.TheprimarymeansofselectingajuryisbyquestioningthejuryAvenire@thegroupfromwhomthejurypanelwillbechosen--inordertouncoveranygroundfordismissingthem.Thequestioningprocess,calledAvoirdire,@AVoirAVoir@ispronouncedAvwahr@andAdire@isusuallypronouncedAdeer,@althoughtheprevailingpronunciationintheSouthisAdire@(asinAdirestraits@).Thetermvoirdireappliesnotonlytojurorsinjuryselection,butalsototrialwitnesses,whenthelatterareaskedquestionsoutsidethepresenceofthejuryinordertodeterminewhethersomeaspectoftheirtestimonywillbeadmittedintoevidenceinfrontofthejury.ThejudgecandismisspotentialjurorsAforcause@(suchassometypeofbiasfororagainstoneoftheparties)orpracticalreasons(suchasinabilitytoserveforthelengthofthetrial).Thelawyerscanrequestdismissalforcause,ormaymakeso-calledAperemptorychallenges.@Becausethelawyersarenotrequiredtogivereasonsforexercisingperemptorychallenges,theymaybeused,asapracticalmatter,foranyreasonatall,ornoreasonbeyondahunchorawhim.Theonlyconstraintsonperemptorychallengesarethateachsideisgivenonlyalimitednumber,andthattheymaynotbeusedmerelybecauseoftheraceorsexofthepotentialjuror.SeeBatsonv.Kentucky,476U.S.79(1986)(race);J.E.B.v.Alabamaexrel.T.B.,511U.S.127(1994)(sex).Properlyconducted,voirdireisasensiblewaytobeginatrialdesignedtoelicitarationalverdict.Evenifpeoplearegenerallyrational,competentactors,fromtimetotimesomearealsounabletoputasideinterestsandbiasesthatmayinfecttheirdecisions(asistrueofjudgesaswell,whoaredisqualifiedforsimilarreasons).Investingsometimeandeffortinremovingsuchpeoplefromthetrialmakeseminentgoodsense.Likemuchofthetrialprocess,thelaudatorysocialgoalisachievedthroughtakingadvantageoftheself-interestoftheparties,whoserespectivedesirestowindupwiththemostfavorablejurypossiblewill,itishoped,canceloutandresultinareasonablyfairmindedpanelofjurors.3.Preliminaryinstructionstc\l2"3.PreliminaryinstructionsOncethejuryisempanelledandsworn,thejudgewilltypicallyissuesomepreliminaryjuryinstructions.Again,practicevariesfromcourttocourt,andjudgetojudge:theseinstructionsmaybenothingmorethanadmonitionsnottotalkaboutthecasepriortojurydeliberations;ormayincludecertaingenericguidelinesaboutconsideringtheevidenceorcredibilityofwitnesses;or,lesstypically,mayevenincludeinstructionsaboutthesubstantivelawgoverningthecase.InJohnson,thecourtreadthejuryaseriesofgenericinstructionsaswellastheAinformation,@thewrittencriminalpleadingsettingforththecharge,whichstatedthestatutoryelementsoftheallegedcrime.4.OpeningStatementstc\l2"4.OpeningStatementsNow,thelawyerstaketurnsintroducingtheirrespectivecasestothejury,intheorderinwhichtheywillpresentevidence:Theplaintiff(civil)orprosecution(criminal)proceedsfirst,thenthedefendant.Anopeningstatementisneitherevidencenorargument,butitissupposedtobeacompactnarrativeofwhatthelawyerbelievesingoodfaiththeevidencewillshow.TheAofficial@purposeistoacquaintthejurywithacoherentoverviewofthecasetomakeiteasierforthejurorstoassimilatethetestimonytheywillsoonhear,testimonywhichmaynecessarilytellthestoryinafragmented,non-chronologicalfashion.Argumentisnotallowedinanopeningstatement,andcanresultinanobjectionbeingsustained.Generallyspeaking,conclusionsorinferencesderivedfromtheevidence,contentionsaboutlegalrules,andcommentsaboutwitnesscredibilityareconsideredAargument.@Forexample,pointingoutweaknessesinyouradversary=scasewouldclearlyconstituteobjectionableargument.However,thelinebetweenafactualstatementandanargumentisnotalwaysclear,muchlikethedistinctionbetweenfactualnewsreportingandeditorializing,andisequallyhardtodraw.AgreatdealfallsintoagreyareabetweenAevidence@andAargument.@ConsiderthefactsofPeoplev.Johnson:TosayinanopeningstatementthatAthedefendantviolentlyattackedOfficerWalker@isclosertoAargument@thanisAthedefendantpunchedOfficerWalkerwithhisfists,@yetbothcouldbeconsideredstatementsofevidence.Howmuchleewaythelawyersgetdependsheavilyuponthediscretionofthetrialjudge.AgoodpracticalmethodtoassesstheAevidence/argument@distinctionistoaskwhetherawitnesscouldsayitonthestandBifso,thenitisprobablyAevidence.@Notwithstandingtheruleagainstargument,thelawyersareadvocates,andtheywillpresentthefactsinthelightmostfavorabletotheircases.Awell-presentedopeningstatementcan,withoutAeditorializing,@offeracompellingAargument@foroneside,andmanytrialadvocatescontendthatjuriesbegintomakeuptheirmindsonhearingtheopeningstatements.(Thereisempiricalresearchtosupportthisview.)Triallawyersoftendescribetheopeningstatementasthelawyer=sAcovenantwiththejury.@TherepresentationsaboutwhatAtheevidencewillshow@arebestviewedaspromises,becausethejurywillresentormistrustthelawyerwhoseclaimsinopeningstatementarenotbackedupbyevidenceadmittedduringtrial.Thismeansthatitisriskyinopeningstatementtostressevidencewhoseadmissibilityisindoubt.5.PresentationofEvidencetc\l2"5.PresentationofEvidenceandtheBurdenofProductionTheevidence-presentationphaseisobviouslythecoreofthetrial.Themannerinwhichthepartiesintroduceevidenceisdiscussedbelow.Thissectiondealswiththeorderinwhichthepartiespresenttheircasesandwiththekey,relatedissueoftheburdenofproduction.Afteropeningstatements,theplaintiff/prosecutionpresentsitscase-in-chief.Thismeanscallingaseriesofwitnessestothestand.Primarilythroughthedirectexaminationofthesewitnesses,Twoimportantdevicesmakeitunnecessary,inmanyinstances,toprovefactsthroughtestimonyorotherevidenceattrial:theseareknownasAstipulation@Twoimportantdevicesmakeitunnecessary,inmanyinstances,toprovefactsthroughtestimonyorotherevidenceattrial:theseareknownasAstipulation@(factsagreedbytheparties)andAjudicialnotice@(seeFed.R.Evid.201,discussedinChapter12).Afailurebytheplaintifforprosecutortomeettheburdenofproductiononeachelementofaclaimcanresultinajudgmentasamatteroflawforthedefenseonthatclaim.Motionsforjudgmentasamatteroflawcanbemadeatseveraldifferentpointsinthelitigationprocess.Motionsforsummaryjudgment(beforetrial),nonsuit/directedverdict/dismissal(afterplaintiff=scase-in-chief),directedverdict(aftercloseofevidence)orJNOV(afterverdict)allarguethatthemovingpartywinsthecaseonfactsthatarenotgenuinelydisputed.(Infederalcivilcases,suchmotionsmadeduringoraftertrialarenowallcalledmotionsforjudgmentasamatteroflaw.SeeF.R.Civ.P.50.)Thereisabasicsimilaritybetweenallthesemotionsseekingjudgmentasamatteroflawonafactualrecord:Ineach,thecourtissupposedtorefrainfromresolvingconflictsintheevidenceandquestionsofwitnesscredibility,andisexpectedtomakeallinferencesinfavorofthenon-movingparty.Thelegalstandardisvirtuallythesameineach:whether,consideringtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenon-movingparty,thecourtcansaythatnoreasonablejurycouldmakeafindingforthenon-movingpartyonthisparticularissue.Theseprinciplesareintendedtoprotectthejury=sinstitutionalroleasthefactfinder,aswellasthenon-movingparty=srighttojurytrial.Theburdenofproduction,andtheresultantprospectoflosingajudgmentasamatteroflaw,hasimportantimplicationsfortheorderinwhichapartywillpresentitsevidence.Whileevidencethatarisesduringthedefendant=scasecanultimatelyberelieduponbytheplaintifforprosecutionasproofofsuchelements,itisextremelyunwiseforaplaintifforprosecutortorelyonthis,becausethedefensecanmakeitsmotionforjudgmentasamatteroflawattheendoftheplaintiff=s(orprosecutor=s)caseinchief,withoutputtingonanyofitsownwitnesses.ThedefenseinPeoplev.Johnson,didjustthat,arguingthattherewasinsufficienttestimonytoshowthattheallegedbatteryvictims,HustonandVanBerg,wereeveractuallytouchedbythedefendantJohnson.AftertheplaintifforprosecutionArests@itscase,andanymotiontodismissisheard(anddenied),defendant=scasebegins.Liketheplaintiff,thedefendantconductsdirectexaminationsofwitnesses,butthethrustofthedefensecaseistocastdoubtontheplaintiff=sevidenceandtopresentevidencesufficienttoproveeachelementofanyaffirmativedefenses.Whenthedefenserestsitscase,theplaintiff/prosecutionhasanopportunitytocallwitnessesinaso-calledArebuttal@case.(ThetermAcase-in-chief@isusedtodistinguishtheplaintiff=smaincasefromitsrebuttalcase.)Thepresentationofrebuttalevidenceproceedsinthesamewayasinthecase-in-chief,exceptthatthescopeofrebuttalevidenceislimited.Rebuttalevidencemustrespondtoeither(a)mattersraisedaspartofdefendant=saffirmativedefenses;or(b)attacksduringthedefensecaseonthecredibilityoftheplaintiff/prosecution=sevidence.Normally,aplaintiffwillnotbeallowedtorepeatevidencepresentedinitscaseinchief,ortopresentevidencethatshouldhavebeenpartofitscaseinchief.AdefendantmaybeentitledtoaAsur-rebuttal@(arebuttaltotherebuttal),butthisisunusual.Therebuttalcaseisnecessarilymuchshorterthanthecaseinchief.6.Post-EvidenceMatterstc\l2"6.Post-EvidenceMattersAfterthecloseofevidence,thecourtmaytakeupcertainlegalmatterswiththelawyersoutsidethepresenceofthejury.ThedefendantmaymakeamotionforAdirectedverdict@onthegroundthatAnoreasonablejury@couldfindfortheplaintiffbecausetheevidence,asamatteroflaw,failstoestablishoneormoreelementsoftheplaintiff=sclaims;orthattheplaintiffhasnotraisedsufficientevidencetodisputeanaffirmativedefense.Similarly,theplaintiffcouldmoveforjudtgmentasamatteroflawonthegroundthatthedefendanthasnotraisedsufficientevidencetodisputeitsclaims.(Theprosecutioncannotmoveforadirectedverdictofguilt,becausethatwouldbedeemedaviolationofthecriminaldefendant=ssixthamendmentrighttojurytrial.)Atthisstagethepartiesalsoargueoverjuryinstructions.Mostcourtsrequirethelitigantstosubmitproposedjuryinstructions.Thesearetoassistthecourt,whichhastheultimateresponsibilitytodecidehowthejurywillbeinstructed;indeed,thetrialcourtcancomeupwithitsowninstructions,andneednotadoptwhatisproposedbytheparties.Manyoftheinstructionsarestandard(andmaybecontainedinbooksormanualsofApattern@juryinstructions).ThepartiestypicallyagreequicklyupongenericinstructionsofthesortgivenineverycaseBaninstructionontheburdenofpersuasion,forexample.Argumentsusuallyariseoverhowtoinstructthejuryonsubstantivelaw,particularlyinareaswherethelawisdevelopingorunsettled.Ifapartydisagreeswithaninstructionthecourtdecidestogive,itmayobjectandargueinstructionalerrorasabasisforappeal.Forthatreason,sometrialjudges,hopingtoreducegroundsforappeal,maytrytopressureorcajolethepartiestoagreeoncompromiseinstructionsoncontroversialpoints.Inordertoavoidkeepingthejurywaitingwhilethefinaljuryinstructionsarephysicallytypedup,thecourtmayholdthejuryinstructionconferencebeforethecloseofevidence;however,mostjudgesliketowaituntiltheevidencephaseisnearanend,becausesomeimportantjuryinstructionquestionswilldependuponwhatevidencewasactuallypresented.Oncetheselegalissuesareresolved,thejuryiscalledbacktothecourtroomforonelastphaseofpresentationsBthejuryinstructionsandclosingargument.7.ClosingArgumentstc\l2"7.ClosingArgumentsUnlikeopeningstatements,inwhichargumentanddiscussionofthelawareprohibited,closingargumentpermitsboth.Inclosingargument,thelawyersAargue@thefacts.Significantly,theymayonlydiscussfactsbasedonevidenceadmittedattrial.AArguingthefacts@isnotmerelysummarizingtheevidence;rather,lawyersinclosingargumentshouldanalyzetheevidence,identifyingandarguingfortheinferencesandconclusionstheybelieveshouldbedrawnfromit.Acriticalfeatureofclosingargumentshouldbetoexplaintothejurythechainofinferencesthatconnecttheevidentiaryfactsheardbythejurywiththefactsofconsequenceinthecase.IfyoufoundtheclosingargumentofdefensecounselDeemerintheJohnsontrialtohavebeenunsatisfactory,animportantreasonforthismaybethathefailedtoestablishthisinferentialchainastomuchofhiskeyevidence.Throughoutthisbook,weusediagramstoillustratethischainofinferences,whichyouwillseeisnecessarynotonlytoarguethesignificanceofevidencetoajury,butalsotodeterminetheapplicationofsuchrulesasrelevanceandhearsay.Aneffectiveclosingpresentsacoherentstoryoftheeventsthatprovesone=scase,whiletryingtoshowhowthemostlikelyinterpretationofeverypointofconflictorambiguityintheevidencesupportsthatstory.Thelawyersshouldstressevidencecorroboratingkeypointsoftheircasesaswellasevidencethatunderminesthecredibilityofwitnesseswhosetestimonycontradictskeypoints.Finally,itisalsoimportanttoweavekeyjuryinstructionsintotheclosingargument:inthisway,thelawyerscanshowthejuryhowtheybelievetheevidencemapsontothecontrollingsubstantivelawBhowtheyhaveprovedtheelements