Closing Arguments to The Jury Question.

[95benzman]

Anyone know the reason or the history as to why the prosecutor in criminal cases gives his closing arguments to the jury last? Is the prosecutor considered to be the home team hence they bat last? I am not all that familiar with court proceeder but this seems like a big advantage.
Just wondering why it works that way and if and defense attorney's ever challenged it.Thoughts.

[koop]

Originally Posted by narwhal

The burden of proof is on the prosecutor/plaintiff. It is a basic tennent of the law, and comes from the English. The prosecutor/plaintiff also gets to sit on the courtroom nearest the jury, in most courtrooms.

I don't know if I'd phrase it as "gets to sit next to" In criminal trials I usually want my client as far away from the jury as possible. Keeps them from hearing the constant harrangue of "he's lying man" and stupid crap like "ask her about the dog"

[95benzman]

Is it the law of the land that the plantiff bats last? Also if someone stays sitted when the judge enters the court room do they get some charge?

[koop]

Originally Posted by 95benzman

Is it the law of the land that the plantiff bats last? Also if someone stays sitted when the judge enters the court room do they get some charge?

Plaintiff gets last ups, you aren't going to draw a contempt charge for not standing unless you have been warned.

[kirk240]

Originally Posted by narwhal

The burden of proof is on the prosecutor/plaintiff.

that is how would be if people were really consitered innocent untill proven guilty. now it is guilty untill proven innocent.

[MTI]

It's the job of the defense attorney to remind the jury of who has the burden of proof and what degree of proof is required for a verdict.

In his murder trial, the only thing that the defendant had going for him was that they never did find the body of his missing wife, but all the circumstantial evidence pointed to the husband. In his closing argument, at 5 minutes before the hour, the defense attorney stood before the jury and said "I have an announcement. We have a surprise witness. My client's wife will be walking through the courtroom doors at the hour." The jury was surprised and for the remaining time they were all gazing, transfixed at the courtroom door. When the time had passed, the defense lawyer told them "It may seem like a trick, but the mere fact that you were looking at the door and expecting to see the victim means that you do have reasonable doubts about whether my client commited murder, and with that doubt, you must find him not guilty. Thank you."

The jury was out for 10 minutes and found the lawyer's client guilty and sentenced him to life in prision. Dumbfounded, the lawyer later approached the jury foreman and asked how they found his client guilty. "Well, that was a pretty good argument you made, and we did have to admit we were looking at the door pretty good . . . except your client was the only one that wasn't looking at the door . . . "