closing statement court

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Finance and Business
• Legal Matters
• Court Practice and Procedure

How to Write a Closing Argument

Last Updated: January 3, 2021 Approved

This article was co-authored by Srabone Monir, JD . Srabone Monir, Esq., is an Attorney based in New York. She received her JD from the St. John's University School of Law in 2013, and has used her legal training in positions for 32BJ SEIU, the New York Legal Assistance Group, and Disability Rights New York. She is currently a Principal Law Clerk with the New York State Supreme Court. She is also a VA Accredited Attorney as of 2015 and is licensed to practice law in New Jersey and in New York. wikiHow marks an article as reader-approved once it receives enough positive feedback. This article has 11 testimonials from our readers, earning it our reader-approved status. This article has been viewed 312,803 times.

A closing argument is delivered by an attorney at the end of a trial, after all of the evidence has been presented, witnesses and experts have been questioned, and the theory behind a prosecution or a defense has been given. A closing argument is the last chance an attorney has to address the judge and jury. [1] X Research source That is why it's so important to write a closing argument that is memorable, factual, and informative.

Preparing to Write a Closing Argument

• Be sure that you have notes about damaging testimony that you were presented with during the trial. This will give you the opportunity to reference that evidence in your closing argument.

• For instance, in a murder case, important details that both sides may want to talk about include the physical evidence that may link the defendant to the murder, whether or not the defendant has an alibi, any problems with the murder investigation, and any motive the defendant may have had to commit the murder.

• For example, if you are the prosecutor during a murder trial, use a picture of the victim when he or she was still alive, a timeline of the defendant's movements around the time of the murder or a word that represents your theory of the case (such as jealousy or greed).
• To ensure that you use visuals aids effectively, choose one or two that you can use throughout the trial, and make sure that whatever visual you use is easily understood by the jury.
• To use a visual aid during your closing argument you may need to get approval from the judge. You must get permission from the judge to show pictures or other types of visual aids that were not admitted into evidence during the trial. However, if the visual aid that you plan to use in your closing argument is an exhibit that was admitted into evidence during the trial, you can use it without approval.

Reviewing Your Case

• The theory of the case is essentially each side's version of what happened, and if the juror's believe one side's theory, that side wins. Because the theory of the case stays the same throughout the trial, the jury should be familiar with each side's theory of the case when closing arguments are given.
• Bring up your theory at the beginning of your closing argument. Try to bring it up during the first 30 seconds of your argument to focus the jury's attention on the theory. Then continue to reference the theory throughout the rest of the argument.
• Be sure to use active, descriptive language and strong transitions between ideas. This will help capture the jury's attention and help them sympathize with your client.

• The prosecution and the defense will necessarily have different views of the facts, so make sure that whichever side you are on, you tell the jury the facts in a way that is favorable to you.

• For example, making an analogy between a murder case and the Cain and Abel story in the Bible may work if the facts are similar because many people have heard the story. On the other hand, analogizing a jealous murder to Shakespeare's Othello will probably not help the jury understand your case, because not too many people read Shakespeare.
• You may also use rhymes and phrases to drive home your argument to the jury. For example, during the famous O.J. Simpson trial, the defense attorney coined the phrase “if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit” to make sure that the jury would not forget an important piece of evidence: the glove.

Attacking the Opposition's Case

• Things that they say or that their witnesses testify to that are not supported by evidence, or
• Things that they say or their witnesses testify to that you can refute with your own evidence.

• For example, you could point out that your opponent is paying their expert witness to testify, and therefore that testimony is not as credible because it is essentially exchanged for money.
• You could also point out that other witnesses may have a stake in the outcome of the case. For instance, if a defendant's mother testifies that he was with her at the time the crime was committed, you could point out that as his mother she does not want him to go to jail, and therefore she could be lying.
• It is also likely that a witness on the other side made some sort of inadvertent comment during testimony that is not helpful, and may even be harmful, to the other side's case. Point this out during your closing.
• However, in a criminal case, you may not make any comments about the defendant choosing not to testify in his own defense. Such comments violate the fifth amendment prohibition against self-incrimination, and making statements such as “he didn't testify because he's guilty” and similar ones is grounds for a mistrial.

Concluding Your Closing Arguments

• However, make sure that you do not argue improperly by appealing to the jurors prejudices against a certain group of people. For example, it is improper to make an argument for a high award of damages based on the wealth of the individual or corporation that is being sued. It is additionally improper to ask the jury to base their verdict on characteristics of the defendant or victim such as race or sex.

• Some examples include talking about a juror's duty to uphold the law and dispense justice, or talking about how letting a defendant go free would put him or her back on the streets to commit more crimes.
• For instance, the prosecutor could say to the jury that “the verdict in this case does more than decide just this case. The verdict is a message to the community that you will not tolerate crime and those who commit crimes.”

Expert Q&A

• Remember to be organized. The jury will need to see the story from start to finish. Keep the argument chronological so the jury does not get confused or misunderstand your case. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Closing rebuttals are available for prosecutors in criminal cases. This can be used if something new and unexpected is brought up by the defense in their closing argument. To do a rebuttal, ask the court to reserve a minute or two of your time at the start of your argument. Failure to save time will result in the court not allowing you to do a rebuttal. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

• This article offers legal information, not legal advice. For legal advice, contact a licensed attorney. Thanks Helpful 3 Not Helpful 2

You Might Also Like

• ↑ http://www.law.indiana.edu/instruction/tanford/web/reference/09close.pdf
• ↑ http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-informed/federal-court-resources/closing-arguments.aspx
• Thomas A. Mauet: Trial Techniques, Ninth Edition.
• http://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Argument.html

About This Article

To write a closing argument, start with your theory of the crime, which you should try to bring up within the first 30 seconds of your closing argument. Then, review your evidence by taking the jury step-by-step through the facts of the case from your side's perspective. You should also point out flaws and discrepancies in the other side's argument to help discredit them. Finally, conclude your closing argument by appealing to the jury's emotions and making a strong final statement. To learn how to outline your closing argument, scroll down! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Sep 2, 2021

Did this article help you?

Dec 14, 2016

Allison Frank

Mar 29, 2022

Sithembiso Gwala

Sep 6, 2016

Apr 18, 2016

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

• Get Involved
• Membership & Benefits
• New Lawyers
• Certification
• CLE Calendar
• On Demand CLE
• CLE Committee
• PracticeLaw
• Court Opinions
• Communities
• Member Directory
• Publications
• My CLE Report
• Resource Hub
• MN Find a Lawyer
• Finding Legal Help
• Forms and Resources
• High School Mock Trial
• Bar Foundation
• What We Stand For
• Awards & Recognition
• Announcements
• Related Organizations
• Privacy Notice

Short, sweet, and specific: Effective openings and closings in oral argument

By Kyle R. Kroll

The first impression is the last impression.” It’s a familiar phrase and one that underscores the importance of oral argument. Briefing is usually the first opportunity to make an impression, but appearing before judges in person is often more influential. The opening volley of your oral argument is crucial. But the last impression can be just as important as the first. As the saying goes, “You never win at oral argument, but you certainly can lose.” Your closing lines are therefore mission-critical as well.

What are the hallmarks of a strong opening and closing in oral argument? Most scholarship about oral advocacy focuses on the middle of the argument—the substance. And there is little advice regarding how to make a powerful and persuasive beginning and end. 

To address this information gap, this article surveys just some of the great oral advocates from Minnesota and elsewhere. A review of openings and closings from these greats reveals three key insights: keep it short, sweet, and specific. 

Openings: Theme and roadmap—briefly

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg led with the following piece of advice in remarking on advocacy: “Be brief, be pointed.” 1 For openings, this typically means beginning with a thematic statement and a roadmap of your main points. 2  

The thematic statement should remind the court of the nature of the case and reiterate your client’s story. And the roadmap should introduce  no more than three key points you wish to make. As one practitioner put it: “Write out an introduction that, from the very first sentence, captures the panel’s attention, frames the appeal and the issues, and presents a compelling narrative why your client should prevail….” 3 It’s important that the theme not overshadow the roadmap, however. 4 Although some scholars suggest completing the roadmap in 30 seconds—because sometimes that’s as much time as you will have before an interruption 5 —anything up to 60 seconds should suffice.  

Take, for example, this effective opener in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil , Inc. , from one of the most prolific appellate attorneys in U.S. Supreme Court history, 6 Lisa S. Blatt:

The Lanham Act authorizes courts to remedy trademark violations by awarding infringers profits subject to the principles of equity. The question presented here is whether this phrase, “principles of equity,” requires trademark owners to prove willfulness as an absolute precondition to profit awards. The answer is no for three reasons: First, the phrase “principles of equity” signifies a multifactor analysis where no one factor is controlling. Second, the statutory text and structure supersede any settled willfulness requirement. And, third, there was no such settled background willfulness requirement. 7

To avoid an interruption and ensure you make your key points, consider former U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement’s succinct opening in United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association :

Respondents’ effort to convert all of the land traversed by a Park Service-administered trail into lands in the National Park Service fails for reasons of text, context, and consequences. 8

Clement’s very short roadmap identifies three key points (text, context, and consequences), while promoting the narrative that the respondent is trying to convert private into public land. 

Sometimes it is best to focus the inquiry on the single most dispositive and pressing issue, just as future Chief Judge John R. Tunheim (District of Minnesota) did in Growe v. Emison :

Redistricting is a power and responsibility that is reserved to the states in the first instance. This case presents the Court with an opportunity to illuminate that important principle and clarify the apparent confusion in the lower federal courts. I intend to direct my argument this morning to the abstention issue: Did the federal court err by refusing to abstain to an ongoing state judicial proceeding? And the case presents perhaps one of the most stark examples of what can go wrong when there are jurisdictional disputes in the redistricting process. 9

Nicole A. Saharsky (a University of Minnesota Law School graduate and also one of the most prolific attorneys to argue in front of the U.S. Supreme Court) 10 offered a shorter and sweeter opener on a key issue in DePierre v. United States :

Whether you call it freebase, coca paste or crack, it’s the same thing chemically. It is cocaine base, it is smokeable, it has the same effects on the user; and Congress did not limit the statute to one form of cocaine basis. This court should not do it, either. 11

Aaron Van Oort focused the Court in on a dispositive issue after opening with a strong thematic point and summarizing the compelling facts: 

This case tests and exceeds the very outermost limits of what a person may be insured against under Nebraska law. In 2006, Commander David Kofoed of the Douglas County CSI unit committed the reprehensible act of planting false blood evidence against two innocent men in a murder investigation. For this criminal misconduct he was both convicted of a class four felony and it resulted in the civil judgments that are underlying this proceeding. In this appeal, the plaintiffs are arguing on his behalf—Commander Kofoed—that he has insurance coverage for the damages arising out of his wrongdoing, even for the punitive damages that were awarded against him. That’s incorrect under Nebraska law because Nebraska affirmatively forbids its political subdivisions like Douglas County, his employer, from paying civil judgments that arise out of criminal wrongdoing, whether they do it through insurance or otherwise. 12

In each of these examples, the advocate’s winning opening was short, sweet, and specific. The openings usually include one or more thematic sentences. Theme appeals to ethics and morality, while the roadmap that introduces the key points appeals to logic. These advocates strive not only to show the court that their positions are right, but also that their clients are in the right .  Sometimes the advocates focus on one key issue, but where there is more than one, they often use signposts (“first,” “second,” “third”) to provide verbal organization in their roadmap. The opening roadmaps are short, even though they often paint a clear picture with salient facts or legal principles. Notice also the use of vivid and concrete language—the “sweet” part of the opening that often grabs attention. Further, the openings either implicitly or explicitly call for the court to make a certain holding (reverse, remand, etc.). Short, sweet, and specific. 

Closings: Make a compelling point, and tell the court what you want

Closings should also be short, sweet, and specific. Admittedly, advocates often have little—or no—time for a planned closing. Questions that arise during oral argument regularly fill up that space, and the lawyer runs out of time, only to offer a short “Thank you” at the end. But when time permits, the greats include closings that are short, sweet, and specific. 

For example, in Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld , future Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg offered this concise and compelling closing: 

In sum, appellee respectfully requests that the judgment below be affirmed, thereby establishing that under this nation’s fundamental law, the woman worker’s national social insurance is no less valuable to her family than is the social insurance of the working man. 13  

Justice Ginsburg’s closing is a model of short, sweet, and specific. She concisely boils down the issue on appeal to a clear ultimatum. She asks for specific relief: that the judgment be affirmed. The Court agreed. 

Appeals to bedrock principles—a version of “sweet”—are common among the greats. Eric J. Magnuson, in Padden Law Firm, PLLC v. Bridget Trice, appealed to core principles of client autonomy and choice:

Mr. Padden got the case in the door, he got some lawyers to handle it, and then he disappeared. And at the end of the day, he wants to get his full 30 percent contract because, if you read their brief, a contract is a contract. It’s not when it comes to attorneys’ fees. Not under Minnesota law. Judge Montgomery did the right thing by honoring the client’s wishes. This was a decision by Bridgett Trice and Quincy Adams, that they wanted the lawyers who really got them their recovery to be appropriately rewarded. They have the right as clients to do that, and if you’re going to worry about public policy, the public policy should be in recognizing the client’s interests and protecting those interests. Thank you. 14

Like openings, the best closings share short, sweet, and specific qualities. Effective closings don’t belabor points, but instead reiterate the key points in simple and motivational terms. Prolific advocates inject personal style into their delivery. They include strong themes and narratives that appeal to ethics, morality, and justice. And they implicitly or explicitly ask the court to take a certain action, leaving little room for ambiguity. 

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to success in oral argument. But these winning examples provide useful guidance to practitioners. Keeping openings and closings brief, compelling, and on-point are key ingredients in making a lasting and persuasive impression. 

KYLE R. KROLL is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and an attorney at Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. in Minneapolis, where he practices business litigation at both the trial and appellate levels. The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone, and not of any other person or organization.

The author expresses special thanks to Miriam Solomon for her research assistance and contributions to this article.

1 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Remarks on Appellate Advocacy, 50 S.C.L.R. 567, 571 (1999).

2 See Stephanie A. Vaughan, Experiential Learning, Moving Forward in Teaching Oral Advocacy Skills by Looking Back at the Origins of Rhetoric, 59 S. Tex. L.R. 121 (2017); Sylvia H. Walbolt, Openings in Appellate Oral Arguments, Carlton Fields (3/22/2019). https://www.carltonfields.com/insights/publications/2019/openings-in-appellate-oral-arguments 

3 George W. Hicks, Jr. Oral Argument: A Guide to Preparation and Delivery for the First-Timer, KIRKLAND & ELLIS (8/16/2019). h ttps://www.kirkland.com/publications/article/2019/08/oral-argument_a-guide-to-preparation-and-delivery  

4 Emily R. Bodtke, Arguing at the Appellate Level, Bench & Bar of Minn., April 2017, at 35 (“[I]t is far better to use the limited time available to explain why the law supports a desired outcome, rather than pontificate about the wrongs committed against a client.”).

5 See Hicks, Jr., supra. 

6 See Marlene Trestman, Women Advocates Before the Supreme Court , The Supreme Court Historical Society (5/21/2021). https://supremecourthistory.org/women-advocates-beforethe-supreme-court/ 

7 Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-1233 (last visited 8/26/2021). For more information about this case, in which Ms. Blatt faced off against Mr. Katyal, see Kyle R. Kroll, Lanham Act Disgorgement Just Go More Complicated, Bench & Bar of Minn. (Dec. 2020), https://www.mnbar.org/resources/publications/bench-bar/columns/2020/12/01/lanham-act-disgorgement-just-got-more-complicated. 

8 United states Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-1584 (last visited 8/26/2021).

9 Growe v. Emison, Oyez , https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-1420 (last visited 8/26/2021).

10 See Tresman, supra.

11 DePierre v. United States , Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/09-1533 (last visited 8/26/2021).

12 Sampson v. Lambert, Nos. 17-1104, 17-1106, 17-1114, 17-1117 (8th Cir. 2018), http://media-oa.ca8.uscourts.gov/OAaudio/2018/2/171104.MP3 

13 Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld , Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-1892 (last visited 8/26/2021).

14 Padden Law Firm, PLLC v. Trice , Nos. 18-2451, 18-2576 (8th Cir. 2019) . http://media-oa.ca8.uscourts.gov/OAaudio/2019/10/182451.MP3

KYLE R. KROLL  is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and an attorney at Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. in Minneapolis, where he practices business litigation at both the trial and appellate levels. The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone, and not of any other person or organization.

The author expresses special thanks to Miriam Solomon for her research assistance and contributions to this article.

• Print Edition
• Classified Ads
• Writers' Guidelines
• January/February 2024
• December 2023
• November 2023
• October 2023
• September 2023
• August 2023
• May/June 2023
• January/February 2023

Minnesota State Bar Association | 600 Nicollet Mall Suite 380, Minneapolis, MN 55402 | 612-333-1183 | 800-882-6722 | [email protected] Hennepin County Bar Association | 600 Nicollet Mall Suite 390, Minneapolis, MN 55402 | 612-752-6600 |  [email protected] Ramsey County Bar Association | 332 Minnesota Street Suite 2550, St. Paul, MN, 55101 | 651-222-0846 |  [email protected]

© 2021 Minnesota State Bar Association | Contact Us | Home |  Site Map | Terms of Use | Site Design by ONE400

closing argument

Primary tabs.

Closing argument is the lawyer’s final opportunity in a trial to tell the judge and/or jury why they should win the case. They do so by explaining how the evidence supports their theory of the case, and by clarifying for the jury any issues that they must resolve in order to render a verdict . Closing arguments take place after all the evidence has been presented and both sides have rested their cases, and they have a lot of power to impact the jury’s decision since it is the last thing the jury will hear.

Contrary to the rest of the trial where the lawyer has to extract information from witnesses following strict evidence rules , closing argument is the lawyer’s time to dramatize the case and tell the jury a story. Here, the lawyer is trying to convince the jury to come out with a verdict in their favor, and they often employ creative strategies and techniques to do so. However, the lawyer can only do this by relying on the evidence presented, and cannot ask the jury to consider any factors other than what has been presented in court. For example, the lawyer cannot try to get the jury to use their prejudice or personal biases in determining the outcome of the case. The lawyer can only comment on the evidence, explain the evidence, and tell the jury that they should be convinced by what was presented throughout the trial.

Both sides at trial present a closing argument. In a criminal case , this means that a closing argument will be made by the prosecutor and by defense counsel (the lawyer representing the person being accused of committing the crime). In a civil case , this means that a closing argument will be made by both the plaintiff’s lawyer and the defendant’s lawyer, whereby the plaintiff is the one who brought the suit and the defendant is the one being sued.

[Last updated in June of 2021 by the Wex Definitions Team ]

• ACADEMIC TOPICS
• trial process/advocacy
• THE LEGAL PROCESS
• criminal procedure
• legal practice/ethics
• civil procedure
• wex definitions

Crafting the Perfect Closing Statement for Trial: Strategies to “Get Them Talking In the Jury Room.”

Attorneys on both sides of the case tout the significance of the closing argument. Brian J. Panish, renowned plaintiff’s attorney, prefers the title “closing argument ” to “summation” because, as he explains, “it is your last chance to argue your case. Instead of summing it up, I like to take the key facts that have been proven during trial and use those to argue my case.” 1 Acclaimed defense attorney Robert F. Tyson, promotes the importance of the closing argument with even more vigor: “I treat closing arguments as if everything, the entire case, winning or losing, all hinge on my closing argument. It’s do or die. This is your last, and maybe best, chance to persuade the trier of fact to rule in your client’s favor.” 2 In this article, we will explore seven strategies that attorneys can employ to deliver the best closing statement possible in order to blast the other side’s case out of the water.

1. Understand Your Case So You Know Where You Will End!

As obvious as it sounds, before constructing a closing statement, it is crucial for attorneys to have a deep understanding of the case. Review the evidence, legal precedents, and the overall strategy employed throughout the trial. Identify the core themes, strengths, and weaknesses of your case, allowing you to present a coherent and persuasive narrative to the jury. Visualize what you want the jury to hear in your closing. What are the most important pieces of evidence or guiding statutes? Those are the pillars of your argument to the jury. Stephen Covey, in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change , gives “Begin with the end in mind” as the second habit, and is insightful in why beginning your preparation for the end of the trial should begin here: “It means to know where you’re going so that you better understand where you are now and so that the steps you take are always in the right direction.” 3

2. Tell a Compelling Story:

Humans are wired to respond to stories. A powerful closing statement should weave together the facts and emotions of the case into a compelling narrative. Craft a story that engages the jury on an emotional level, connecting them to the experiences and motivations of the parties involved. Use vivid language, analogies, and relatable examples to make your argument more relatable and memorable. As Tyson says: “Make it dramatic…. Would you want the defense lawyer to just recite everything you heard from the last several weeks and sprinkle in some boring jury instructions? Or would you want an interesting presentation that moves you to action?” 4

3. Summarize the Evidence:

Although we suggest that the closing argument is not just a summation of the case, it is necessary to include some sort of summary of what was presented. Provide a concise and persuasive summary of the evidence presented throughout the trial by highlighting the key points that support your client's position, emphasizing the strongest evidence while addressing any weaknesses or inconsistencies, and using visuals, such as charts or timelines, to reinforce your argument and help the jury visualize the sequence of events.

4. Address Counterarguments:

Anticipate the opposing party's arguments and preemptively address them in your closing statement. By acknowledging potential counterarguments and refuting them with logical reasoning, you can strengthen your case and diminish the impact of the opposing side's arguments. Demonstrating that you have considered alternative viewpoints can enhance your credibility in the eyes of the jury. Also, make sure that you pinpoint weak parts of the other side’s argument as they give their opening statement, presentation of the evidence, and rebuttal so that you can use their own arguments against them during the closing argument.

5. Appeal to Reason and Emotion:

A well-rounded closing statement appeals to both the jury's rationality and emotions. One of Tyson’s main suggestions for closing arguments is to “keep it real. Whatever you feel about your case, say it. Be real…. Regardless of what your defenses are, show the jury you care." 5 When presenting logical arguments supported by the evidence, legal principles, and expert testimony, don't overlook the emotional aspect of the case. Connect with the jury on a human level by evoking empathy, compassion, or outrage when appropriate. Emotionally resonant statements can leave a lasting impact and work to influence the jury's decision-making process in your favor. 

6. Utilize Effective Delivery Techniques:

Delivery plays a crucial role in the effectiveness of a closing statement. Use clear and concise language, avoiding overly technical terms that may confuse the jury. Maintain eye contact, project confidence, and use vocal inflections to emphasize key points. Employ pauses strategically to allow important ideas to sink in. Body language should convey credibility, sincerity, and conviction. As Tyson suggests, make your last words to the jury “dynamic, persuasive, and caring” in order to win the jury and the case. 6

7. Call for Action:

Conclude your closing statement by clearly articulating the desired outcome. Urge the jury to make a decision in favor of your client based on the evidence and legal standards. Provide a compelling reason why justice and fairness demand a verdict in your client's favor. Leave the jury with a sense of responsibility and the understanding that their decision carries significant consequences. Panish echoes this statement, saying:

You must persuade them that their verdict is an opportunity to do something noble, important and hugely significant. This is the truth. Involve your jurors in this crusade from the beginning of the case to the very end by making the case interesting and compelling to them. Do not let the trial, and especially the argument, become so dull and unimportant to them that they end up deciding the case based on which lawyer irritated them the least. 7

Crafting an effective closing statement requires a combination of meticulous preparation, persuasive storytelling, and compelling delivery. By understanding the intricacies of the case, summarizing the evidence effectively, addressing counterarguments, appealing to reason and emotion, and delivering the statement with confidence, an attorney can maximize their chances of success in the courtroom. A powerful closing statement has the potential to sway the minds of the jury, leading to a favorable outcome for your client and your reputation as a trial lawyer.

• https://plaintiffmagazine.com/recent-issues/item/closing-argument-argue-don-t-summarize . 

 Tyson Jr., Robert F. Nuclear Verdicts: Defending Justice for All (Law Dog Publishing, LLC., 2020), p180.

The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change by Stephen R. Covey.

• Tyson Jr., Robert F. Nuclear Verdicts: Defending Justice for All (Law Dog Publishing, LLC., 2020), p188.
• Tyson Jr., Robert F. Nuclear Verdicts: Defending Justice for All (Law Dog Publishing, LLC., 2020), p189.
• https://plaintiffmagazine.com/recent-issues/item/closing-argument-argue-don-t-summarize .

Latest Posts

• Mastering Courtroom Leadership: 10 Key Questions for Lawyers
• Understanding Proximate Cause in Legal Defense
• Two Things Can Be True Simultaneously: Learning to See Through the Eyes of a Juror
• 4 Ways to Ensure Work Travel Doesn’t Wreck Your Routine
• How a Company's Response to Mistakes Shapes Its Destiny

See more »

Refine your interests »

Written by:

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

• Increased visibility
• Actionable analytics
• Ongoing guidance

Published In:

First court, inc. on:.

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

How to Draft a Persuasive Closing Argument in Five Easy Steps

Overwhelmed by the task of writing a persuasive closing argument here's how to draft a persuasive closing argument in five easy steps..

There are very few times when practicing law feels like artistry; closing argument is one of them. If you’re feeling overwhelmed by the task — here’s how to draft a persuasive closing argument in five easy steps. 

By Kimberly A. Quach, Family Lawyer

Drafting A Persuasive Closing Argument

This Hot Tip is designed to help with the task of drafting a closing argument in five easy steps. It is hardly a panacea for good preparation, but it can help to allow the lawyer’s nonjudgmental, brainstorming juices flow rather than slow the process of drafting when perfectionism looms.

The Five Easy Steps

The five easy steps to drafting a persuasive closing argument are based on the premise that closing argument is drafted, in part, while trial is going on rather than after the trial. Certainly, one cannot draft a good closing argument until the end of the case, but why not brainstorm about ideas for closing as you listen to the case? Pull out your highlighters, colleagues, as you are listening to opening statements and testimony so that you can easily refer to what you found compelling as you listen to the case. Then, when you finally have the opportunity to draft your closing argument, you can collect all of these bits and pieces and quickly incorporate them into your argument.

Lest I get ahead of myself, though, the steps in drafting your closing argument should include at least the following:

• Listen to the Case Carefully. Listen to the witnesses, the evidence presented, and the Court and opposing counsel with the theme of your case repeating like a well-memorized mantra. Also, look for the Big Mistake made by the opposing client.
• Highlight Supporting Information for Future Reference.  Highlight any testimony, and comments by the Court that support your theme in the case, as well as your perception of the Big Mistake made by the opposing client.
• Identify Two or Three Main Points in the Case. Identify two or, at most, three main points relevant to the Court’s consideration.
• Fit the Supporting Information into Your Outline. Take all of the highlighted information that you thought was helpful and place it into the outline that you have created.
• Create a Catchy Introduction That Summarizes Your Assessment of the Case. After you have created an outline, complete with supporting information, craft a pithy, catchy introduction with which to start your closing.

Listen To The Case Carefully

It is important to establish a theme to your case in your opening statement, which is beyond the scope of this Hot Tip, so I will not address how to develop that theme. Your task, as you listen to the case, is to listen for how your theme plays through the evidence. Is it being supported? Does the theme need to be modified? If so, what additional evidence should be submitted to support the modified theme? How do you plan to pitch the justification for the modified theme to the Court in closing?

It is also important to see how the opposing client’s theme plays through the evidence. Has he made promises that were not kept during the case? Has he introduced testimony or evidence that contradicts his theme? A Big Mistake is the part of a case in which the opposing client submits testimony or evidence that substantially undercuts his initial assessment of the case. Listen to the case carefully to identify that Big Mistake. At some point in the middle of your closing, make sure to identify the opposing client’s Big Mistake to undercut the opposing case. It is best to do so in the middle of the case so that the court does not view this technique as unnecessarily negative or overzealous.

Highlight Supporting Information For Future Reference

There is no reason to artificially compartmentalize tasks as a trial advocate. Being a good trial lawyer is a lot like flying an airplane on instruments — one has several critical functions to negotiate simultaneously, and it is perfectly fine (perhaps even expected) to multitask. So that listening to the evidence for closing argument does not become overly burdensome, I suggest you simply use one color of highlighter to identify the information you feel might be valuable for your closing. If you highlight the important tidbits, you will be more likely to stop worrying about remembering them later. (Those lawyers that are highlighter-happy might use another color for cross-examination.)

Remember that there are several sources of information for your closing. The judge may make preliminary comments on the record or in chambers that you wish to address in closing. Your client or an expert might have used a clever phrase to describe a feature of the case. In one of my recent trials, the expert said the father was “consistently inconsistent‚” in his positions during a custody study, a statement I found particularly helpful in my closing. And do not forget exhibits as a source of closing argument materials, which should be identified by exhibit number in your closing so the Court has a clear outline of why you are making your arguments. The judge may not prepare a ruling for several days after the trial, so specific references to exhibits and testimony will be helpful to refresh her recollection. Even more important, use of exhibit numbers and specific references to testimony will vest your argument with an air of credibility, making the Court more secure in its willingness to trust your perceptions of the case.

Identify Two Or Three Main Points In The Case

The Court can process only so much information. After reviewing all of your highlighted information in a very summary fashion, try to think of two or three main ideas that summarize the evidence and testimony. This should be the hardest part of drafting your argument, so do not be hard on yourself if it takes a little time. A cohesive structure for your argument is the very foundation of what makes it compelling and easy for the Court to digest completely, with all of its nuances.

Fit The Supporting Information Into Your Outline

• You can state, “All of the lay witnesses agreed that the Mother was the child’s primary caretaker, including . . .“ and list the witnesses’ names.
• The wife’s spending habits, as summarized in the year-end VISA and American Express Statements (Exhibits 31 and 32), show that she spent at least $3,000 a month after taxes.

If a witness provides a good anecdote about the evidence, place it in the outline. At this point, do not be judgmental about what you include. Just list it all.

If you are like me, the closing argument you have drafted is about an hour long. If your judge does not have this level of patience, now is the time to start cutting out detail that you feel is not essential to the argument, or to summarize the detail more briefly. Your choice about what to omit from your closing argument should be based, in part, upon how the judge responded to the evidence. If she was annoyed by one particularly uneventful turn in the evidence, it is a good bet you can safely omit that discussion from your closing. If your judge was careful not to reveal her leanings, put your best argument together. Know that you may need to adapt if the judge appears to wince at your approach during closing.

Create a Catchy Introduction That Summarizes Your Assessment of the Case

Your argument is drafted. You breathe a sigh of relief. But now, according to communications experts, you need a catchy introduction. This introduction will grab the Court’s attention and give you the momentum to deliver your closing with an appropriate level of enthusiasm. It should complement your theme. Perhaps you will quote a witness, or read from an exhibit, or provide an analogy for the way in which your client or the opposing client is approaching the case. Whatever it is, make it simple. Your goal is to have the Court repeat your introduction and theme in her ruling.

Drafting a closing argument is hardly brain surgery, but sometimes we treat it that way because we want it to be excellent. This Hot Tip hopefully provides some ways to help the lawyer quickly draft a compelling closing argument by treating it like a brainstorming exercise, rather than like Chagall’s irreversible splotch of oil paint on a clean canvas. There are very few times when practicing law feels like artistry; closing argument is one of them. Be creative, and be credible by preparing for closing argument throughout the trial.

Related Articles

The Assisted Opening Statement Show the judge why your case is worthwhile.

Development and Introduction of Exhibits Almost anything can be an exhibit, if it will advance the cause and lead to proof of the case.

Kimberly Quach is a member of the Oregon and Washington bars. She practiced commercial litigation and family law in Seattle and Portland before moving to Singapore in 2000 and becoming general counsel to NMG Financial Services Consulting.

About the Author

Diana Shepherd, CDFA®

Diana Shepherd has over 30 years of experience as a marketing, branding, SEO, copywriting, editing, and publishing expert. As Content Director for Family Lawyer Magazine, Divorce Magazine , and Divorce Marketing Group , she oversees all corporate content development and frequently creates SEO-friendly videos, podcasts, and copy for family law and financial firms. The Co-Founder of Divorce Magazine and Divorce Marketing Group, Diana is an award-winning editor, published author, and a nationally recognized expert on divorce, remarriage, finance, and stepfamily issues. She has written hundreds of articles geared towards both family law professionals and divorcing people, and she has both performed and taught on-page SEO for 20+ years. Diana spent eight years as the Marketing Director for the Institute for Divorce Financial Analysts® (IDFA®), and she has been a Certified Divorce Financial Analyst® since 2006. While at IDFA, she wrote, designed, and published  The IDFA Marketing Guide , and she also created seminars for CDFA professionals to present to family lawyers (approved for CLE), as well as to separated and divorcing individuals. She has represented both DMG and IDFA at industry conferences and events across North America, and she has given marketing as well as divorce financial seminars at many of those conferences.

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

©2022 Divorce Marketing Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Web Accessibility | Reproduction in whole or in part without their written permission is prohibited.

Skip to main navigation

• Email Updates
• Federal Court Finder

Differences Between Opening Statements & Closing Arguments

Each party in a jury trial has a right to speak directly to jurors once before and once after the evidence is presented.

Opening Statement

The opening statement at the beginning of the trial is limited to outlining facts. This is each party's opportunity to set the basic scene for the jurors, introduce them to the core dispute(s) in the case, and provide a general road map of how the trial is expected to unfold. Absent strategic reasons not to do so, parties should lay out for the jurors who their witnesses are, how they are related to the parties and to each other, and what each is expected to say on the witness stand. Opening statements include such phrases as, “Ms. Smith will testify under oath that she saw Mr. Johnson do X,” and “The evidence will show that Defendant did not do Y.” Although opening statements should be as persuasive as possible, they should not include arguments. They come at the end of the trial.

Closing Argument

Only after the jury has seen and heard the factual evidence of the case are the parties allowed to try to persuade them about its overall significance. Closing arguments are the opportunity for each party to remind jurors about key evidence presented and to persuade them to adopt an interpretation favorable to their position. At this point, parties are free to use hypothetical analogies to make their points; to comment on the credibility of the witnesses, to discuss how they believe the various pieces of the puzzle fit into a compelling whole, and to advocate why jurors should decide the case in their favor.

Key Difference

There is a critical difference between opening statements and closing arguments. In opening statements, parties are restricted to stating the evidence: (“Witness A will testify that Event X occurred”). In closing arguments, the parties are free to argue the merits: “As we know from Witness A’s compelling testimony, Event X occurred, which clearly established who should be held responsible in this case.”.

DISCLAIMER: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for educational purposes only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on any pending case or legislation.

What are your chances of acceptance?

Calculate for all schools, your chance of acceptance.

Your chancing factors

Extracurriculars.

How to Write Mock Trial Opening and Closing Statements

Do you know how to improve your profile for college applications.

See how your profile ranks among thousands of other students using CollegeVine. Calculate your chances at your dream schools and learn what areas you need to improve right now — it only takes 3 minutes and it's 100% free.

Are you applying to schools and want to know your admissions chances?   Calculate your chances right now and understand your odds before applying.

An Overview of Opening and Closing Arguments

First comes the opening argument , which offers an initial impression to the judge (who will rule the outcome of the case) and scoring attorneys (who actually determine which team wins the round) and must provide a clear, concise and legally solid introduction to the case the presenting attorney’s side intends to prove.

Ending the case is the closing argument , which is the judges’ final impression before an attorney rests their case. It is often longer and more detail-oriented in its argumentation than the opening statement. It also requires a review and summarization of the evidence presented during the case and a legal argument regarding the evidence and what it proves or disproves. Furthermore, a  closing argument often includes a rebuttal section, so attorneys must be ready to respond and challenge opposing arguments in a dynamic setting.

Although these two parts of a case—the opening argument and the closing argument—may seem similar and certainly require the same foundational skills, they are different enough in purpose to require specific and targeted preparation.

The Skills Required for a Strong Opening and Closing Argument

As mentioned earlier, a core set of skills is required for nearly all parts of Mock Trial competition, including opening and closing statements. Mastering certain skills related to confidence in public speaking, clear legal thought and analysis, and quick critical thinking help you exude a polished and professional demeanor while elevating your argument to a higher level.

Public Speaking

Strong public speaking ability is perhaps the most fundamental trait to a successful mock trial attorney and is especially important for the opening and closing arguments. Public speaking skills include much more than knowing one’s argument and presenting it carefully. The finer points of speaking well include considering one’s inflection, tone, pace, emotion, and volume during an argument.

Mastering these factors is often harder than it may seem, simply because different arguments will require the attorney to set different atmospheres in the courtroom. For example, if an attorney wishes to draw attention to the plight of a victim and evoke sympathy, a strong, harsh and forceful presentation may not be the most effective. On the other hand, if the attorney wishes to emphasize the callousness or malice of a defendant in the same case, the presentation previously described would be much better suited.

The key to using the finer points of public speaking is to understand the effect that these factors will have on the audience. When you realize the huge difference that simple changes in volume or pace can make to the overall nature of the argument, you can create an argument perfectly suited to the facts and case at hand.

Understanding the Legal Concepts Behind a Case

Another prerequisite to having a polished and successful opening or closing argument is a thorough understanding of the legal concepts and statutes underlying a case. This understanding is crucial for the attorney presenting these arguments because often in a case, the opening or closing arguments are the only times when legal theory can be presented directly and openly.

Questioning witnesses about events and establishing a story can provide the elements necessary to prove guilt or innocence, but does not afford the opportunity to present legal reasoning. Important parts of a case such as the burden of proof, the elements of the crime, and the requirements to find guilt or innocence can only be brought up during opening or closing arguments.

A clear and accurate explanation of these legalistic parts of the case ensures two things. First, such a presentation portrays the attorney as knowledgeable and competent to a judge. Secondly, a complete and accurate presentation of the legal elements of a case presents the argument of the attorney in a structured, easily digestible way. When a judge hears which elements that will be proved, and understands how the other side must respond to win the case, they will be able to follow the testimony of witnesses much more closely and understand the significance of facts presented. It is important to remember that a case is not ultimately meant to tell a story but to prove guilty or not guilty in terms of the law.

The Importance of Memorization

Finally, one feature common to all outstanding opening and closing arguments is that they are memorized . Although some attorneys and coaches may argue that bringing up notes and referencing them occasionally is acceptable, top teams don’t employ this practice. Memorizing one’s argument accomplishes three major things: it shows confidence, helps the attorney focus on delivery rather than content, and allows for freedom of movement throughout the courtroom that can make the presentation of an opening or closing statement more dynamic.

Memorization automatically displays an elevated level of confidence and preparation to the judge and scoring attorneys. Just seeing an attorney enter the well without any aids and begin an argument is powerful. When an attorney displays confidence in the manner which they speak, this confidence is directly translated to the case they present.

Secondly, memorization helps the attorney better focus and perfect the finer points of public speaking. Without having to worry about looking for their next line, an attorney can focus more of their attention on the quality of their speaking. Additionally, people in general tend to speed up and talk too fast when looking at or reading from a paper. Thus, one of the virtues of memorization is that an attorney automatically speaks more slowly and clearly.

Finally, without an aid or paper, an attorney is not tied to the podium and is not seen as clumsy because they are holding something. This allows the attorney to move about the courtroom, physically pointing to any evidence that may be displayed, and motioning actively, such as counting off elements on one’s hand or gesturing towards certain witnesses. The more an attorney moves about a courtroom, the greater control they have over it. If an attorney can move from the counsel table, walk over to the exhibits, and end in front of the judge, they display an invaluable sense of comfort and poise.

Components of a Successful Opening Argument

There are four major elements to a complete opening argument. Although the exact structure and order of these elements within the overall argument will vary, it is important to include significant detail about each in order to lay the proper groundwork for the case an attorney intends to present. The elements include:

1.  A factual and sequential overview of the major facts in the case important to the presenting attorney’s side. The amount of storytelling involved will vary depending on many factors, including whether the argument is for the prosecution or the defense team.

Because the prosecution team presents their opening statement first, and because they have the burden of proof (the requirement to prove the defendant guilty), their opening will include much more storytelling. Often, a prosecution opening statement can be structured entirely around the storyline of the case. Such an intensive retelling is not necessary for the defense, as they must simply cast a reasonable doubt on the allegations made. Thus, a defense opening will often include a story of much more limited scope and one targeted specifically towards the prosecutorial weaknesses of the case.

2. A description of what the prosecution or defense intends to prove or show . For the prosecution, this should be a statement of the charges, and the corresponding list of actions the defendant must have taken to be found guilty. This statement should be accompanied by a short description of what exactly the defendant did. For the defense, a focus should be placed on the weakest legal elements that the prosecution must prove. Mock trial cases will never favor one side over the other, so there will always be the opportunity to poke holes in the argument of the other side.

For example, if the prosecution must prove “malice aforethought” by the defendant, but the defense will call a character witness to testify to the defendant’s good nature, this should be brought up in the opening statement. One thing the defense should take care to avoid is appearing to argue their case with the opening statement. The opening statement is not the place to draw legal conclusions, as no evidence has been presented yet. The opening statement is the place to present a side’s theory of the case and any important facts that will come to light during the trial.

3.   A short explanation of the evidence that will be presented . For the prosecution, this can include actual physical evidence, such as a diagram or letter. These should be referenced and used during opening statements by the prosecution. Additionally, both the prosecution and defense should be sure to emphasize particularly important facts to their side during the opening. If the defense plans to have a witness testify who will provide an alibi for the defendant, this should be brought up in the opening.  

4.  A short description of what each of the witnesses will testify . This provides a roadmap for the judge and scoring attorneys and helps them know what to expect from each witness. It often helps to present a side’s witnesses in the order that they will appear. This allows for a streamlined introduction to the facts, as well as the structure of the case, and minimizes confusion created by varying orders.

To summarize, the four elements of a successful opening argument are an overview of the major facts of the case, a description of what the prosecution/defense intends to argue, a description of the evidence to be presented, and a description of each witness’ testimony.  By including these four elements into an opening argument, an attorney will be sure to cover all the bases necessary for a solid case foundation and will fill in any gaps of knowledge the judge may have, allowing them to focus entirely on the direct examination of witnesses that follows.

Mistakes to Avoid in an Opening Argument

There are certain very common mistakes which should be avoided at all costs during opening statements.

One of the most often encountered occurs when one side states what evidence the opposing side will show . Although both teams have a pretty good idea of what the other will attempt to prove and what evidence or witnesses they will use because of the structure of Mock Trial, this knowledge should not be used in opening statements. Just like a real attorney does not know what exactly the opposition’s witnesses will testify, the same holds true for Mock Trial.

The second common mistake to avoid is drawing legal conclusions. Although it is fine to say what their side intends to do, an attorney should not present their opening statement as a conclusive legal argument. Phrases such as “the evidence will show” are always good ways to make a point while observing this boundary.

Components of a Successful Closing Argument

There are also four important elements present in a good closing argument. These elements are similar to those listed in the opening statement but differ in two significant ways.

First and most importantly, closing occurs after a case has been presented, meaning that all evidence and testimony has been heard. This allows an attorney to speak much more concretely about what evidence favors their case. Secondly, closing argument often includes a rebuttal, where each attorney has the opportunity to argue points brought up in the opposing side’s argument. This allows for a much more direct attack on the weak legal points of the opposing side’s case than anywhere else in the trial. The components of a closing argument are as follows:

•   A complete review of the important evidence in the case. Although a closing will be longer than an opening, it is still not long enough to bring out every piece of evidence presented, so an attorney must limit themselves only to the most crucial and significant. This is the place for a recap of anything that tends to prove or disprove elements of the crime.
•   An attack on the opposing side’s case . If an opposing witness was impeached during cross examination—that is, they made a statement during questioning inconsistent with their witness statement in the casebook, and the questioning attorney formally drew attention to this inconsistency—this is the place to remind the court. If the opposing side failed to adequately address a significant element of the crime, this is where it can be brought up. The closing argument is not only the place to reaffirm one’s argument but to help discredit and tear down the argument of the opposing side. This can be done in a practiced manner as part of the standard closing statement, but it can also be included in the rebuttal, which is the third element of a closing argument.

3. The rebuttal. The rebuttal is usually around one minute of time where an attorney can counter directly what the other side has claimed. It often helps if an attorney takes notes on possible ideas for rebuttal throughout the trial and starts and ends their rebuttal with rehearsed and memorized statements. This gives the rebuttal a natural and fluid presentation while also making it dynamic and unique to every trial.

• An emotional appeal. If so desired, the closing argument is the ideal place for an emotional appeal to the judge.  This can work for both the prosecution and defense. For example, the prosecution can remind the judge of the suffering of the victim and the need for justice. The prosecution can also play up and emphasize any negative characteristics of the defendant in order to strengthen this emotional appeal. Conversely, the defense can emphasize the bright prospects of the defendant, and any positive characteristics they may possess. These kinds of additions do not fit into every case and are usually more stylistic than substantive, but can be powerful tools when used in the closing argument.

Mistakes to Avoid in a Closing Argument

Just as with opening, there are common mistakes to avoid when conducting the closing argument. One of the most common mistakes is to incorrectly quote the opposing counsel’s argument . It can be a powerful tool to use a person’s exact words against them in argument, but any effect is lost if they are misquoted. The same goes for misquoting witnesses. At best the judge will see it as a careless mistake. At worst, it can even be seen as a malicious attempt to deceive the court.

Another extremely common mistake is to reference evidence that had actually been excluded via objection . For example, if an attorney intended on having a particular piece of testimony included in the case, but this testimony was excluded because of an objection, it is stricken from the record and cannot be used as evidence. If an attorney quotes something that was actually excluded, it is possible for the opposing attorney to call them out during rebuttal or bring up the issue before scoring is submitted. As such, the best way to avoid making this mistake is to keep careful track of what evidence comes in and what stays out and to know one’s closing well enough to be able to modify it if necessary and avoid any excluded evidence.

The more one competes and observes others in Mock Trial, the more they will internalize what it means to have a great argument. The most important tip for writing a good opening or closing is to first stick to the fundamentals of the case . An attorney must first cover the basics of the law and case. Making sure these elements are solid both factually and legally, will create a foundation upon which witnesses and examining attorneys will be able to build on. Once the content itself has been finalized, mastering delivery and presence will result in an extremely effective opening or closing argument.

Hopefully, armed with these tips, you’ll be well on your way to creating an opening or closing argument that will propel your mock trial team to victory.

Want access to expert college guidance — for free? When you create your free CollegeVine account, you will find out your real admissions chances, build a best-fit school list, learn how to improve your profile, and get your questions answered by experts and peers—all for free. Sign up for your CollegeVine account today to get a boost on your college journey.

Related CollegeVine Blog Posts

• International

Trump's hush money trial

Middle East turmoil

Singapore Airlines flight

Dramatic day in court as defense begins to present case in Trump trial

By CNN's Kara Scannell, Lauren Del Valle and Jeremy Herb in the courthouse

Judge Merchan told lawyers to be prepared to give closing arguments on Tuesday

From CNN's Jeremy Herb, Lauren del Valle and Kara Scannell

Before leaving for the weekend, Judge Juan Merchan told the lawyers to be prepared to give summations, also known as closing arguments, on Tuesday – meaning the jury could have the case as early as this week.

Prosecutors told Merchan they have no other witnesses to call after Michael Cohen is off the stand, and the defense said it plans to call one campaign finance expert, though that is not set in stone.

Donald Trump's attorney Todd Blanche said the defense could still choose to call additional witnesses to challenge testimony, and Trump’s team maintains it has not made a decision on whether the former president will testify in his own defense.

There’s also the possibility, as  CNN has reported , that former Cohen attorney Bob Costello could appear. Costello made an impression during a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing Wednesday where he repeatedly attacked Cohen and said “virtually every statement” Cohen made on the stand about Costello was a lie.

The other complicating factor is there are only three days of court next week leading up to the Memorial Day holiday.

“It’s not ideal for there to be a big lapse” between summations and when the jury will be given final instructions by the judge before beginning deliberations, Merchan told the lawyers on Thursday.

Merchan didn’t say what that would mean for next week’s schedule – an early start or going later was one option, he suggested – but it all indicates that the judge believes the jury could end up beginning deliberations this week.

Trump is en route to court

From CNN's Kara Scannell, Jeremy Herb, Lauren del Valle, Kristina Sgueglia

Donald Trump departed Trump Tower notably earlier Monday en route to court where his former lawyer and “fixer” is back on the stand to resume a fourth day of testimony.

But first the court has some evidentiary matters to address — hence the early departure time.

Court will resume at 8:45 a.m. with the evidentiary issues, and the defense is expected to continue its grilling of Cohen at approximately 9:30 a.m., after critical testimony Friday undermined his credibility.

The prosecution will then have a chance to undo some of the testimony with an opportunity for redirect.

There are signs this historic trial of a former president is nearing a close. Prosecutors have said this is their last witness. The Trump defense will then have a chance to present their case, and have floated calling two witnesses though nothing is set in stone. It is yet to be determined whether Trump himself will testify. The judge asked attorneys to prepare for summations potentially Tuesday, but everything is fluid.

Reminder : Court is shorter this week, with no proceedings Friday due to a juror flight ahead of the Memorial day holiday.

Cohen departs Manhattan residence

Michael Cohen departed his Manhattan residence early Monday, making no comment to the media, on the day he is expected to return to the stand for a fourth day.

Cohen is currently under cross examination in the historic criminal trial of his former employer Donald Trump.

Defense said they expect to finish cross of Cohen before the mid-morning break. The prosecution would then have a chance to re-direct, and then there will be an opportunity for re-cross and so on.

Prosecutors have said Cohen is their last witness. The defense would then be given an opportunity to present their case. Cohen departed just after 7:30 a.m.

Key things to know about Trump's defense team as Michael Cohen's cross-examination resumes

From CNN staff

Donald Trump's legal team is led by Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, two former federal prosecutors from New York, and Susan Necheles, a veteran criminal defense lawyer with deep experience in New York and with appearing before Judge Juan Merchan.

The defense will continue to cross-examine Michael Cohen, the prosecution's key witness, when court resumes this morning. Blanche conducted the questioning last week.

During cross-examination, defense attorneys typically aim to discredit the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses. Witnesses’ responses are considered evidence, but not the questions posed by an attorney.

Here are the key things to know about Trump's legal team:

• Bove  was the co-chief of the national security unit at the US attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York. In a statement to CNN in September 2023, Blanche said that Bove is “an expert in white collar and CIPA-related litigation.”
• Blanche  has worked as a prosecutor and defense attorney at two large law firms,  according to his website . He says that during his career as a defense attorney, he got the criminal indictment against Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman  Paul Manafort dismissed  prior to trial and achieved an “unexpectedly positive result in the politically charged prosecution by the SDNY against Igor Fruman, an associate of Rudy Giuliani.” Fruman was sentenced to  one year and one day in prison  for his role in a scheme to funnel Russian money into US elections.
• Necheles  represented Trump’s business at its  tax fraud trial in 2022 . The company was convicted. 
• Kendra Wharton , a white-collar defense lawyer who has experience practicing in Washington, DC, was added to  the former president’s legal team . She is a "brilliant lawyer" and "clients have trusted her for years," Blanche said in the 2023 statement.

Court will begin early today to deal with some outstanding issues

From CNN's Kara Scannell and Kristen Scott

The court is starting earlier than usual today at 8:45 a.m. ET to deal with outstanding evidentiary issues.

But the jury will start at 9:30 a.m. ET, as usual. 

Donald Trump is expected to depart Trump Tower earlier than usual as a result, according to sources.

Analysis: Stakes are high for prosecutors to rescue Cohen testimony as Trump trial enters endgame

From CNN's Stephen Collinson

The biggest questions as  Donald Trump’s  first criminal trial resumes Monday are whether his attorneys have destroyed the credibility of  star witness Michael Cohen  — and how much of the damage prosecutors can fix.

The presumptive GOP presidential nominee is due back in court amid clear signs  the hush money trial is drawing toward a close  — unless he takes the risky decision to testify in his own defense, a step that would lengthen and complicate the proceedings.

Defense lawyers say they expect to complete their bruising cross-examination of Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and enforcer, on Monday morning.

Prosecutors will then use their second chance to question Cohen to try to patch up any doubts the ex-president’s team may have sown in the minds of jurors about his version of events.

New York state prosecutors allege Trump broke the law by falsifying financial records to cover up a hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels. This, they say, was to deceive voters in 2016 in an early example of election interference. Trump denies having an affair with Daniels and has pleaded not guilty.

Read the full analysis.

Catch up on key takeaways from the defense's grilling of Michael Cohen on Thursday

Donald Trump  attorney Todd Blanche raised his voice and flailed his arms at Michael Cohen, accusing the prosecution’s star witness of making up a phone conversation with Trump just before he sent $130,000 to Stormy Daniels’ attorney in October 2016.

Blanche confronted Cohen with text messages he sent with Keith Schiller – whom Cohen had said put Trump on the phone – which were unrelated to anything having to do with Trump or Daniels.

It was the most dramatic moment of the cross-examination of the key witness in the hush money case, and the clearest example yet of the defense’s effort to cast doubt on Cohen’s memory of phone calls and other significant interactions with Trump in 2016.

Court was off on Friday so Trump could attend the high school graduation of his son, Barron. Cross-examination of Cohen will resume Monday and it’s possible summations could begin as soon as Tuesday.

Here are the takeaways from Day 18 of the Trump hush money trial.

Judge says he won't make public the records from pretrial hearing over discovery

From CNN’s Kara Scannell

The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s criminal trial in New York denied the former president’s request to make public documents related to a dispute  over whether records were withheld before the trial was underway.

Judge Juan Merchan initially delayed the start of the trial so he could hold a discovery hearing to understand whether any documents were improperly withheld or turned over late by the Manhattan district attorney’s office. Trump’s lawyers said prosecutors were late to provide certain records related to the production of documents from federal prosecutor’s investigation into Michael Cohen, a key witness in the case. The judge found there were no violations.

After the hearing in March, Trump’s lawyers asked for various records related to the matter to be made public, including timelines of the communications involving federal and state prosecutors. Prosecutors opposed the request saying it would reveal “work product and sensitive” communications among law enforcement agencies. Other records are correspondence among the parties and the judge.

The judge on Thursday ruled none of the records should be made public.

“The parties could have introduced exhibits into evidence at the Discovery Hearing but elected not to do so. As a result, the exhibits are not a part of the record and should therefore, not be in the public court file,” the judge said.

Trump’s Hill allies descend on hush money trial in new GOP litmus test

From CNN's Melanie Zanona, Annie Grayer and Kristen Holmes

When his hush money trial first got underway in April, former President   Donald Trump privately complained that not enough of his allies were inside or outside the courtroom to defend him, according to multiple GOP sources familiar with his thinking.

But several weeks later, Trump’s supporters are flocking to the Manhattan courtroom in droves.

While in most cases Trump has not asked anyone to attend his trial, sources say word of Trump’s frustration quickly spread to Capitol Hill, prompting his staunchest defenders to spring into action to show their support for Trump while he’s in the hot seat. Some of them began reaching out to Trump’s camp, offering to come and defend the former president in New York and asking how they could secure a spot in court.

GOP Sen. Rick Scott of Florida became the first lawmaker to make the trek up north last week, followed several days later by House Speaker Mike Johnson – who’s been under fire from his right flank – and a quartet of Republicans sporting nearly identical navy suits with red ties, which, whether accidental or not, took the coordination to the next level.

Their appearances inspired what sources say has been a mostly organic movement among Republicans. Now, the floodgates have opened, with Trump’s team fielding a deluge of interest from lawmakers and orchestrating campaign stops with Trump supporters within the city before and after trial appearances as the proceedings drag on.

“There’s been a waterfall [of people] who want to come and show support for him, and we expect more,” one Trump adviser told CNN.

Please enable JavaScript for a better experience.

Opening Statements and Closing Arguments: Making Your Case: Famous (and Infamous) Cases

• Famous (and Infamous) Cases
• Research Guides & Organizations
• Journals and News
• Westlaw and Lexis
• Print Resources
• Video and Audio Resources
• Evaluating Internet Resources
• Famous Trials Collection of original essays, trial transcripts and exhibits, maps, images, and other materials relating to the greatest trials in world history.

Opening Statements

1868: Impeachment of President Andrew Johnson

• Opening Statement by Benjamin Butler for the House of Representatives
• Opening Statement of Benjamin Curtis for President Johnson

1873: Trial of Susan B. Anthony

• Opening Statement by U.S. District Attorney Richard Crowley
• Opening Statement by Hon. Henry R. Selden for the Defense

1893: Trial of Lizzie Borden

• Opening Statement by A. J. Jennings for the Defense

1945: Nuremburg Trials

• Opening Statement of Justice Robert H Jackson
• Opening Statement by Brigadier General Telford Taylor in the Doctors Trial

1987: Trial of Bernhard Goetz

• Opening Statement for the Defendant by Barry Slotnick
• Opening Statement for the Prosecution by Gregory Waples

1997: Trial of Timothy McVeigh 

• Opening Statement of the Prosecution
• Opening Statement of the Defense

2006: Trial of Zacarias Moussaoui

• Opening Statement by U.S. Attorney Robert Spencer
• Opening Statement by Defense Attorney Edward MacMahon

Closing Arguments

• Closing Argument of Thaddeus Stevens for the House of Representatives  
• Closing Argument of Attorney General Henry Stanbery for President Johnson

1907: Trial of Bill Haywood (labor leader)

• Summation by the Prosecution
• Summation of Clarence Darrow

1911: Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

• Closing Argument of Charles S. Bostwick for the Prosecution
• Closing Argument of Max D. Steuer for the Defense

1921: Black Sox Trial

• Excerpts of Closing Arguments

1921 Sacco and Vanzetti Trial

• Closing Argument of Frederick G. Katzmann for the Prosecution
• Closing Argument of Fred Moore for the Defense
• Closing Argument of Jeremiah J. McAnarney for the Defense

1924: Trial of Leopold & Loeb

• Robert Crowe's Summation for the State
• Clarence Darrow's Summation for the Defense

1946: Nuremburg Trials

• Closing Argument of Justice Robert Jackson

1969-70: "Chicago 8" Trial

• Closing Argument for the Prosecution by Thomas Foran
• Closing Argument for the Defendants by William Kunstler

1970-71: Trial of Charles Manson

• Closing Argument for the Prosecution by Vincent Bugliosi

1995: O.J. Simpson Trial

• Closing Argument of Johnnie Cochran
• << Previous: Home
• Next: Trial Skills >>
• Last Updated: Sep 28, 2023 12:17 PM
• URL: https://libraryguides.law.pace.edu/opening

Advertisement

Closing Arguments in Trump’s Trial Will Likely Be Next Week, Judge Says

Defense lawyers have the opportunity to call witnesses, including their client, former President Donald J. Trump, but whether he will testify is not clear. Then the case goes to the jury.

• Share full article

By Jonah E. Bromwich and Matthew Haag

• May 20, 2024

The judge in the criminal trial of former President Donald J. Trump said on Monday that the case would take longer than anticipated to wrap up, with closing arguments now not expected until next week.

“It was either have a long break now or have a long break then, and unfortunately the calendar is what it is,” said the judge, Juan M. Merchan, referring to the long weekend for Memorial Day.

The new schedule outlined by Justice Merchan meant that the jurors who would decide Mr. Trump’s innocence or guilt would not have the case in their hands until after the holiday. Next week will be the trial’s seventh.

After more than seven hours of sometimes bruising cross-examination over two days, Michael D. Cohen, former President Trump’s one-time lawyer and fixer, will return to the stand Monday to face final questions from the Trump defense team. Before Justice Merchan’s remarks on Monday, prosecutors were expected to rest their case as soon as Tuesday after Mr. Cohen steps down.

Court will be adjourned on Wednesday, the normal off day for the trial every week, but also on Friday and Monday, which is Memorial Day.

Mr. Cohen is the 20th — and most consequential — witness called by the Manhattan district attorney’s office in the first criminal trial of an American president. When the defense questioning concludes, prosecutors may re-interview Mr. Cohen.

After that, the defense has the opportunity to present its own case. On Thursday, Mr. Trump’s lawyers said that he had yet to decide whether he would testify, and it is unclear whether his lawyers might call other witnesses.

Closing arguments will follow the defense’s case. That’s when the lawyers summarize what jurors have spent weeks witnessing.

Though those arguments are typically similar to the opening statements that begin the trial, they tend to be even more forceful. Lawyers weave evidence and testimony to convince the jurors either that they have seen proof that a crime was committed or that they should acquit because there is reason for doubt. In New York state courts, defense lawyers offer their summations first, and prosecutors follow.

After closing arguments, the case goes to the jury, which has been on duty since April 22.

The judge will first read instructions that will help the jurors determine the verdict. This is an important moment for both sides, because the theory of the case is complicated: The 34 criminal counts have been charged as felonies, because prosecutors say that the former president falsified business records to conceal a second crime . They have argued to the jury that the second crime was a violation of New York’s election law.

Prosecutors do not actually have to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Trump committed that election crime, and it is not clear how the judge will explain to jurors what they should consider. His explanation will be important in the outcome of this complex case.

After the jurors are instructed, they will deliberate, a process now likely to start after the Memorial Day weekend. A judge will typically allow deliberations to run for several days, if they must, and urge jurors to reach some kind of agreement. If they can’t, the judge would declare a mistrial — and prosecutors could bring the case again.

If the jury reaches a unanimous verdict, the jurors would return to the courtroom, in this case to announce whether the former president, Mr. Trump, is guilty or not.

Who Are Key Players in the Trump Manhattan Criminal Trial?

The first criminal trial of former President Donald J. Trump is underway. Take a closer look at central figures related to the case.

An earlier version of this article misstated how many witnesses have appeared in Donald J. Trump’s trial. Michael D. Cohen is the 20th witness, not the 19th.

How we handle corrections

Jonah E. Bromwich covers criminal justice in New York, with a focus on the Manhattan district attorney’s office and state criminal courts in Manhattan. More about Jonah E. Bromwich

Matthew Haag writes about the intersection of real estate and politics in the New York region. He has been a journalist for two decades. More about Matthew Haag

Our Coverage of the Trump Hush-Money Trial

News and Analysis

After 15 days of testimony from 20 witnesses, the prosecution rested its case  against Donald Trump. The case was capped by three days of grinding cross-examination of Michael Cohen , Trump’s former fixer.

After the prosecution rested, the defense began a simple mission: destroy Cohen’s credibility. But the judge almost immediately lost his patience with the defense’s witness, Robert Costello .

An entourage of more than a dozen supporters who joined Trump at the courthouse included Chuck Zito , a former leader of the Hells Angels motorcycle gang who spent years in prison on drug charges.

More on Trump’s Legal Troubles

Key Inquiries: Trump faces several investigations  at both the state and the federal levels, into matters related to his business and political careers.

Case Tracker:  Keep track of the developments in the criminal cases  involving the former president.

What if Trump Is Convicted?: Could he go to prison ? And will any of the proceedings hinder Trump’s presidential campaign? Here is what we know , and what we don’t know .

Trump on Trial Newsletter: Sign up here  to get the latest news and analysis  on the cases in New York, Florida, Georgia and Washington, D.C.

Trump trial live updates: Witness testimony finished in hush money case, setting up closing arguments

Here's what's happening at trump's trial.

• The prosecution and defense have rested their cases. Judge Juan Merchan told the jury to return next Tuesday since there wouldn't be enough time this week with scheduling conflicts and the holiday to hear closing arguments and begin deliberations.
• Lawyers will return Tuesday afternoon to hold a hearing with Merchan about what should be included in the jury instructions.
• Defense witness Robert Costello, who was called "contemptuous" by Merchan yesterday, completed his testimony today.
• Trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels . He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Trump seems more alert right now

Katherine Doyle

Trump appears more engaged this afternoon than at earlier points in the trial, tapping his attorney Todd Blanche on the shoulder, pointing across the room, pursing his lips and whispering to defense attorney Susan Necheles while listening to the lawyers and the judge debate the jury instructions.

Trump closed his eyes intermittently before almost immediately resuming some kind of activity, and he has been leafing through the papers in front of him, a stack that includes printed pictures.

Judge leans toward defense's argument on 'intent' instruction

Kyla Guilfoil

Judge Merchan is now dealing with the expanded "intent" instruction issue and has indicated that he agrees with the defense on causing false entries when those false entries are reasonably foreseeable to the defendant based on his conduct.

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo argued that case law supports the prosecution's position. Trump's lawyer Emil Bove said that the district attorney’s theory of the case is tantamount to "causing the causer." Colangelo maintained that “acting in concert with someone” is separate from the concept of “cause” and is not duplicative.

Merchan ultimately reserves decision but repeats that it's his inclination to strike the "reasonably foreseeable" language.

In the (legal) weeds

Daniel Arkin

The arguments over jury instructions that have monopolized the last roughly 30 minutes are probably the most technical we've seen since the trial started.

But the instructions could be some of the most important decisions that the judge makes because they are the basis by which the jury will decide whether Trump is guilty or not.

Following jury-instruction arguments blind

Gary Grumbach

Reporting from Manhattan criminal court

Lawyers are going through arguments about the instructions to the jury, but the public and the media trying to follow along lack one key element: a copy of the proposed instructions.

It is incredibly challenging to follow without being able to read the draft charges.

For his part, Trump is sitting with his eyes closed while the lawyers go back and forth.

Merchan proposes language to clarify on election-related charge

Judge Merchan proposes leaving in this sentence: “If the payment would have been made even in the absence of the candidacy, the payment should not be treated as a contribution.”

Trump's lawyer Emil Bove says that is an accurate recitation of the “irrespective rule” but they want to offer examples to the jury from the FEC’s prior application of the rule.

Merchan said that he is reserving decision, but his inclination is to use some of each side’s language.

Trump's lawyers ask for additional language on the election-related charge

Reporting from the Manhattan courtroom

The defense wants an instruction that the phrase “for the purpose of influencing an election” refers to spending clearly and unambiguously related to the election.

The prosecution says that the jury needs less, not more, and that the phrase “for the purpose of influencing an election” is fairly straightforward.

Defense pushes for language to show Trump could have paid campaign expenses on his own

The next disputed area concerns the defendant’s desire to say there was no limit on an individual’s contributions to his own campaign.

Trump's lawyer Emil Bove says they want this language to help the jury understand Trump could have paid on his own.

Judge Merchan says the defense can argue this on summation but he’s not giving this instruction.

Merchan holding off on 'willfully' decision

Judge Merchan said he is reserving making a decision about adding the word "willfully" to two places in the jury instructions.

Lawyers on both sides debate the charge related to federal election law

The first charge the parties are arguing about concerns the Federal Election Campaign Act, or FECA.

The defense argues that now it is clear that the unlawful means through which the alleged conspiracy was carried out should itself be a criminal violation, necessitating the addition of the term “willfully” in two places.

The government says that the language of New York Election Law 17-152 (which is apparently the crime the district attorney's office will argue Trump intended to conceal) only discusses “unlawful means,” and it is not limited to criminal violations.

Trump repeats there is 'no crime' as he re-enters the courtroom

As Trump returned to the courtroom, he told reporters that there is "no crime" but that the prosecution may "try and devise one right now" as he argued Judge Merchan "has been very helpful to the other side."

"We have a situation where we have no crime and this next couple of hours is very important because the judge can try and manufacture one," Trump said.

He emphasized the same remarks he's made over the last few weeks of the trial, continuing to say that there is no basis for the trial and argued that Merchan is a corrupt judge.

Court has reconvened for a discussion on jury instructions

Summer Concepcion

Court is back in session.

Judge Merchan and lawyers for both the prosecution and the defense will discuss what can be included in jury instructions.

This gives both sides the chance to discuss what jurors should be advised before they proceed with deliberations.

Giuliani pleads not guilty in Arizona election interference case

Rudy Giuliani has pleaded not guilty to nine felony charges related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Arizona, The Associated Press reported.

Giuliani and other Trump allies, including former Arizona Republican Party chair Kelli Ward, were arraigned today after being charged in the “fake electors” scheme seeking to falsely declare that Trump had won the battleground state.

Giuliani, a former New York City mayor who served as Trump’s personal attorney, was mentioned several times throughout Robert Costello’s testimony today.

Costello testified that he had known Giuliani for 50 years and that Giuliani attended his wedding . The prosecution also displayed emails showing Costello mention Giuliani in email exchanges with his law partner Jeff Citron and Michael Cohen.

By the numbers: People v. Donald Trump

Jillian Frankel

• We are in Week 6 
• 22 total witnesses
• 20 days in court, including jury selection
• 413 days since Trump's indictment
• More than 80 hours of witness testimony

PROSECUTION WITNESSES

• David Pecker
• Rhona Graff
• Robert Browning
• Phillip Thompson
• Keith Davidson
• Georgia Longstreet
• Jeffrey McConney
• Deborah Tarasoff
• Sally Franklin
• Stormy Daniels
• Rebecca Manocio
• Tracey Menzies/Harper Collins
• Madeleine Westerhout 
• Daniel Dixon/AT&T
• Jennie Tomalin, Verizon
• Georgia Longstreet (second appearance)
• Jaden Jarmel-Schneider
• Michael Cohen

DEFENSE WITNESSES

• David Sitko
• Robert Costello

Trump has been surrounded by allies throughout the trial, including some potential VP picks, like Sen. JD Vance of Ohio and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy.

Alan Dershowitz slams judge for scolding defense witness

Alan Dershowitz, who was in court with Trump on Monday, talked briefly with me just now about his time inside the courtroom, which he called “eventful.”

The prominent lawyer said Judge Merchan, who erupted in frustration yesterday with defense witness Robert Costello, “really obviously showed his bias” when he cleared the room to excoriate Costello. Dershowitz was in the room for the duration.

“I saw the judge’s affect when he was screaming at the lawyer,” Dershowitz said. “The judge really lost his cool and for the first time, really, really obviously showed his bias.”

Donald Trump Jr. rips case against his father

Rebecca Shabad is in Washington, D.C.

Speaking to cameras outside the courtroom, Donald Trump Jr. was emphatic that his father didn't commit a crime and that "the only problem is the witnesses who are experts in these things aren’t allowed to actually testify to that. Because you have a rigged system."

Courts don't allow legal experts to testify because judges are responsible for interpreting the law.

Today was the first day Donald Trump Jr. attended the trial.

He said that the prosecution's star witness, Michael Cohen, is a convicted liar and "now an admitted thief ... who they're hanging the entire case on." He said the other star witness "happens to be a porn star."

"They’ve started to go down a very dangerous and a very slippery slope. This insanity cannot stand. This kind of bias cannot be allowed to happen in the United States or anywhere else," he continued. "If this was going on right now, in a third-world banana republic, there would be people screaming about it. You people, the media, would be outraged. Instead, because I presume you’re fine with whatever the results are, as long as it’s against Donald Trump, your silence is deafening and it’s disgusting."

Merchan says the jury will return next Tuesday for summations

Judge Merchan explains that the jury won't return to court until next Tuesday for summations, adding that those closing arguments "will not be quick" and he expects his instructions to take at least an hour.

He said the court would have been in session today and Thursday. “There is no way that we can possibly do what needs to be done in a cohesive manner."

The judge said he decided the best thing to do was for the jury to adjourn now and return next Tuesday. He directed the jurors to continue keeping an open mind and then he'll give final instructions on the law. He added that he expects to potentially work next Wednesday as well.

Defense rests

The defense has rested.

Robert Costello's testimony is a double-edged sword

Laura Jarrett

This morning’s testimony also illustrates why calling Costello as a witness was always a double-edged sword. The defense team called him because he undermines Cohen’s credibility, by repeating Cohen’s alleged admission that he had “nothing” on Trump.

Yet, today, the prosecution has effectively painted him as working to keep Cohen quiet and then being angry when he failed — using his own emails against him.

Prosecution successfully uses Costello's emails against him

That was a masterclass in effective cross. Not only did Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger use Costello’s own emails against him brilliantly, but she kept calling back to his statement yesterday that an email spoke for itself —making his responses this morning seem less credible.

Costello told law partner that Cohen is 'playing with the most powerful man on the planet'

In an email to his law partner Jeff Citron, Costello wrote, “What should I say to this asshole? He is playing with the most powerful man on the planet.” 

Asked whether this email speaks for itself, Costello agreed.

Robert Costello told Michael Cohen to make his opinion known about Trump not properly supporting him

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger entered into evidence an email that Costello wrote to Cohen.

“You are making a very big mistake if you believe the stories these ‘journalists’ are writing about you," Costello wrote. "They want you to cave. They want you to fail. They do not want you to persevere and succeed. If you really believe you are not being supported properly by your former boss, then you should make your opinion known.”

Costello told his law partner the goal was to get 'Cohen on the right page'

Hoffinger displayed an email showing that Costello told his law partner Jeff Citron that their goal was to get "Cohen on the right page without giving him the appearance that we are following instructions from Giuliani or the president."

"In my opinion," Costello wrote in the email, "this is the clear & correct strategy."

Cohen, in his testimony, accused Costello and Trump's campaign of trying to exert a pressure campaign to get him to respond as they wished.

Costello pushed back on the idea that the meanings of his emails are self-evident, contradicting what he said in his testimony yesterday.

"As you said yesterday," Hoffinger asked, "the email speaks for itself, correct?"

Costello's reply: "Sometimes."

Costello's attitude could make him dislikable to the jury

Katie S. Phang

Already, Costello is being difficult with his testimony as he answers questions from prosecutor Susan Hoffinger — only making himself more dislikable to the jury.

Costello is being impeached by exhibit after exhibit. It feels like a waste of energy to quibble with Hoffinger on these emails as they speak for themselves and don't require his added remarks and rebuffs.

Robert Costello says Rudy Giuliani attended his wedding

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked Robert Costello if he was very close to Rudy Giuliani and had known him for 50 years.

Costello said yes, he's known Giuliani for years and said Giuliani attended his wedding.

Giuliani has been a close Trump ally for several years, including serving as his personal attorney. The former New York City mayor has become central to Trump's legal woes, including being indicted in Georgia on charges related to the effort to overturn the 2020 election.

Trump says 'we'll be resting pretty quickly' before entering courtroom

Speaking to reporters before entering the courtroom on Day 20 of the hush money trial, Trump again griped that he would rather be campaigning instead of “sitting in an ice box all day” for almost five weeks and added that his team would be resting their case "pretty quickly."

After listing several conservative legal scholars who echoed his assertion that he did not commit wrongdoing, the former president blasted the hush money trial as a “kangaroo court,” said he hopes the appellate division “will take care” of the legal battles he’s facing and accused Judge Juan Merchan without evidence of being “highly conflicted.”

Trump insisted that his lawyers have presented a “phenomenal case” in the hush money trial and that "we’ve won the case by any standard.”

“Any other judge would’ve thrown this case out," he said.

Prosecutor opens with questions about Robert Costello's emails

Hoffinger started her cross-examination of Costello with a series of questions about emails he provided to the district attorney's office — including one message from Cohen in which he told Costello to stop contacting him.

“Please cease contacting me as you do not and have never represented me in this or any matter," Cohen wrote, according to the exhibit displayed to the courtroom.

Court begins for the day

Court has begun for the day with Costello set to return to the stand.

Trump's guests in court today

Vaughn Hillyard

Here are Trump's guests today in court:

• Donald Trump Jr.
• Former acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker
• Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi
• Sen. Eric Schmitt
• Rep. Daniel Webster
• Rep. Dan Meuser
• Rep. Ronny Jackson
• Rep. Troy Nehls
• Rep. Dale Strong
• Rep. Maria Salazar
• Sebastian Gorka
• Joe Piscopo

Trump increasingly relies on allies to deliver the attack lines the gag order bars him from uttering

Trump has been calling the politicians who make the pilgrimage to stand behind him in the New York City court where he is on trial his “surrogates” — as they push the lines of personal attacks that he has been barred from making because of a gag order.

The coordination and organization between Trump and those supporters have stoked questions about whether the remarks by the cast of Republicans amount to a violation of Trump’s gag order. But legal experts say that it’s difficult for prosecutors to argue a violation has occurred when Trump isn’t the one doing the talking and that, even if they were successful, it might trigger a consequence they’re trying to avoid: sending Trump to jail.

Read the full story here.

Michael Cohen's lawyer says there was 'no gotcha moment' for the defense

Dayna Perry, Cohen's lawyer, said she felt “relieved and exhausted but good” in her first interview after her client’s testimony in the Trump hush money trial concluded .

In response to Merchan’s excoriation of Robert Costello’s grumblings during his testimony, Perry said she and her client had left the courthouse by the time Costello took the stand but argued that Costello’s behavior underscores Cohen’s testimony about his distrust in Costello.

“And so, as Judge Juan Merchan apparently said at sidebar, the behavior bordered on ' contemptuous ,' a legal term, and I think not -- not overly surprising given what we heard from the witness stand,” Perry said.

Pressed by Jen Psaki about whether she regrets Cohen waiving his attorney-client privilege when it comes to Costello, Perry said she doesn’t think there were “any blows that landed” because her client testified about the true nature of their relationship and “why he stayed at arm's length” from Costello.

Perry argued that there was “no gotcha moment” for the defense, noting that Cohen had disclosed details of his discussions with Trump in a book he released four years ago and voluntarily turned over his phone to the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

Asked why she thinks the defense did not cross-examine Cohen about a lot of parts of his earlier testimony, including the Trump Tower meeting and his visit to the White House, Perry first praised the prosecutor Susan Hoffinger for “drawing the sting and frontloading of that damaging information” before speculating that Trump lawyer Todd Blanche “probably felt that there was only damage he could do by going back to it and revisiting it.”

What to expect in court today

Costello returns to the stand, and his demeanor will be under close scrutiny, particularly by Judge Merchan.

The judge threatened to strike all of Costello's testimony if he continues to exhibit the same kind of behavior from yesterday that Merchan described as "contemptuous." Losing Costello's testimony would be a setback for the defense, who called the veteran New York lawyer in an effort to undermine some of Cohen's recollection of events.

After Costello steps down from the stand, all attention will turn to Trump's attorneys to see if they call another witness or decide to rest. They have not said definitively whether Trump will testify.

Here's what you missed in court yesterday

In another sign that the trial is nearing the end, the prosecution rested after former Trump lawyer and self-described fixer Michael Cohen took the stand for the last time.

Cohen, in discussing the transactions surrounding the hush money payment, described a discrepancy in funds that prompted Trump's attorney to ask Cohen if he “stole from the Trump Organization.”

His response: “Yes, sir.”

The defense then called two witnesses — only to have the judge threaten to strike the remarks of Robert Costello, whose testimony aims to undermine Cohen's credibility.

Costello was reprimanded by Judge Juan Merchan after the jury left the room, and after the judge took the highly unusual step of clearing the press from the courtroom. A court transcript later showed that the judge called Costello's actions "contemptuous."

Merchan also laid out what's likely to be the schedule for the remainder of the trial. Court is out of session tomorrow, as usual, but there also won't be any trial proceedings on Friday or Monday. That means lawyers on both sides are likely to meet on Thursday to discuss jury instructions, with closing arguments on tap for as early as next Tuesday.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Russia hands down first prison term for anti-war remarks

• Copy Link copied

A court in Moscow sentenced a municipal council member to seven years in prison Friday for his remarks opposing the war in Ukraine . The unprecedented sentence raises the stakes for Kremlin critics in Russia who speak out against Moscow’s invasion of its ex-Soviet neighbor.

Alexei Gorinov was found guilty of spreading “knowingly false information” about the Russian military, an offense that carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison under a law the Russian parliament rubber-stamped a week after the Kremlin sent troops into Ukraine.

The 60-year-old member of Moscow’s Krasnoselsky municipal council is the first person sentenced to serve time behind bars for a conviction on that charge, according to Net Freedoms, a legal aid group focused on free speech cases.

The two other convictions so far led to a fine and a suspended sentence, the group said. Gorinov, who was arrested in April, is the first elected representative to face charges under the wartime law.

Gorinov criticized Russia’s military actions in Ukraine at a municipal council meeting in March. A video available on YouTube shows him voicing skepticism about holding a planned children’s art competition in his constituency while “every day children are dying” in Ukraine.

Photographs published by Russian media of a Friday court hearing showed Gorinov behind inside a glass-walled defendant’s dock and holding up a sign that read, “Do you still need this war?” A bailiff tried to cover the sign with his hands.

When President Vladimir Putin ordered the Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine, a massive wave of outrage and antiwar sentiment swept Russia. Thousands of people protested on the streets of Moscow and St. Petersburg daily, and hundreds of thousands signed online petitions opposing the attack.

The Kremlin insisted that what it called a “special military operation” in Ukraine had overwhelming public support, and moved swiftly to suppress any criticism. Thousands of protesters were arrested, and dozens of critical media outlets were shut down.

Individuals who spoke out publicly against the invasion or accused Russian troops of committing atrocities in Ukraine have been targeted under the new legislation, which outlawed the spread of “false information” about the invasion and disparaging the military.

As of Friday, Net Freedoms had counted 68 criminal cases involving false information charges and at least 2,000 misdemeanor cases for the alleged disparagement of the Russian military.

Gorinov refused to plead guilty, and he denounced the invasion again while giving his closing statement in court on Thursday.

“For five months, Russia has been carrying out hostilities, coyly calling them a special operation. We’re being promised a victory and glory. Why, then, are a large part of my compatriots feeling shame and guilt?” Gorinov said. “I am convinced that a war is the fastest way to dehumanization, when the line between good and evil fades. It is always death, I don’t accept it and reject it.”

Bruce Millar, Amnesty International’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia deputy director, called the sentence handed to Gorinov “shocking.”

“It is an unlawful reprisal for expressing his views, and not the administration of justice,” Millar said in a statement. The council member “did not commit any internationally recognized crime by calling the war unleashed by Vladimir Putin on Ukraine what it is, a criminal war.”

Political analyst Tatyana Stanovaya, the founder of the R.Politik think tank, said Gorinov’s seven-year sentence took a “special political decision” and that his case stood out because he aired antiwar views while speaking as a public official at a council meeting.

“The sentence is a defiantly and emphatically cruel warning to all: ‘Dissent, you will all land behind bars for a long time if you combine antiwar rhetoric with political activity,” Stanovaya wrote on Telegram.

Follow AP’s coverage of the Russia-Ukraine war at https://apnews.com/hub/russia-ukraine

• Shop to Support Independent Journalism
• We Have Issues
• Investigations
• Ethics Policy
• Ad-Free Login

'That's not what's going on': CNN cuts off Trump speech for fact-check

Sarah K. Burris

Senior editor, sarah burris is a long-time veteran of political campaigns, having worked as a fundraiser and media director across the united states. she transitioned into reporting while working for rock the vote, future majority and wiretap magazine, covering the millennial generation's perspective during the presidential elections. as a political writer, burris has had bylines at cnn, salon.com, bnr, and alternet and serves as a senior digital editor for rawstory.com..

Women in Media Cente

Donald Trump spoke out in a rambling speech Tuesday outside of the Manhattan courtroom that CNN found so objectionable it cut the rant midway through.

"As they say, there is no crime," Trump said, repeating soundbites he brought up multiple times. "It should be dismissed before you have a verdict. But they have a judge that's, let's say, complicated."

ALSO READ: Trump’s Manhattan trial could determine whether rule of law survives: criminologist

He then corrected himself, "Let's also say conflicted."

Trump is facing 34 charges including business fraud involving hush money payments allegedly made to hide a sexual relationship with an adult movie star. He has pleaded not guilty.

In the past, Trump accused the judge of being "conflicted" because his adult daughter works with Democratic candidates.

"He's complicated and conflicted," Trump repeated outside the courtroom.

"And it's a very strange situation. Nobody's ever seen anything quite like it," he continued.

"But we have a situation where we have no crime. And this next couple of hours is very important because the judge can try and manufacture one where he goes from a misdemeanor, which doesn't exist because of the statute of limitations. It doesn't exist. Absolutely," he said, describing a meeting Tuesday afternoon in which jury directions were expected to be discussed.

"And they try to bring it into a felony," Trump continued, "but they can't do it because they have no proof that, — and you've seen what's happened — remember, I'm gagged . I'm not allowed to say what I'd really like to say. You'd be very impressed. But I'm gagged. So, why would I take the chance? But we do want to defend our Constitution, so at some point, maybe I will take the chance."

Trump decided not to testify in his case on Tuesday as the defense rested. He had said earlier that he would.

"It's a very serious situation when a Republican nominee for president — the Republican nominee — someone that won easily and quickly in record time gets No. 1 gagged and No. 2 is a Democrat-appointed judge. And you're playing with fire with this. It's very sad. But the good news is they've not proven a case," said Trump.

He then picked up his legal pad and began attacking President Biden, which was when CNN cut from the speech.

"He's saying, we know they're going to hash out jury instructions. He says they're going to create a crime there. They're going to make something up. That's not what's going on," explained host Jessica Dean.

Legal analyst Elie Honig agreed, saying that at times, Trump was difficult to make out, but it was clear enough for him to assess Trump was "not accurate."

He also pointed out the many, many times Trump repeated the phrase "no crime."

See the responses in the video below or at the link here.

Stories Chosen For You

Should trump be allowed to run for office, 'miserable performance': how maga lawyer’s own emails may have shredded his credibility.

Donald Trump's defense in his hush money trial rested on Tuesday after pro-Trump attorney Robert Costello finished his testimony and the former president decided not to testify. Final arguments in the trial are expected after Memorial Day.

Costello was combative in court, clashing with Justice Juan Merchan. Trump's defense team used Costello as a witness in the hope of damaging the credibility of former Trump fixer Michael Cohen, but according to the Daily Beast's Jose Pagliery , it was Costello's own credibility that was damaged by his testimony.

"At this trial," Pagliery explains , "the defense was hoping that Costello would portray Cohen — the case's key witness — as a desperate liar who'd been caught by the feds after independently putting together the hush money deal without Trump's express permission and is only now trying to pin it on his former boss.

“Instead, whatever alternate narrative Costello was trying to tell was eclipsed by his miserable performance on the stand Monday and Tuesday: first getting reprimanded by the judge for showing his utter contempt for the entire trial, then later by being forced to confront his own damning words written six years ago."

READ MORE: Trump witness turns 'strawberry red' after judge’s scalding scolding

Pagliery notes that Costello was cross-examined by Susan Hoffinger, a prosecutor for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg Jr.'s office. And she highlighted what Costello had to say in past emails.

"She started by directing the jury's attention to the way Costello flaunted his personal ties to Giuliani when he and his law partner, Jeff Citron, first met with Cohen at the New York Regency Hotel on April 17, 2018," the Daily Beast reporter explains . "When Costello asserted he didn't, Hoffinger pointed to an email Costello sent Cohen two days later in which he wrote, 'I told you my relationship with Rudy which could be very, very useful to you'…. Hoffinger then pointed to another email in which Costello told his law partner that (former New York City Mayor Rudy) Giuliani's new spot at the White House made it 'all the more reason' for Cohen to hire their firm, thanks to a connection 'which I mentioned at our meeting.'"

Pagliery adds , "Costello wouldn't budge. But he was visibly annoyed. For an hour, Hoffinger turned Costello's overconfidence into a weakness."

The reporter points out that the more Hoffinger read Costello's emails, the worse she made him look.

READ MORE: Former FBI counsel praises 'significant color' Michael Cohen brought to testimony

"One by one, Hoffinger read through emails showing what appeared to be a quiet campaign to pressure Cohen into remaining on the Trump team," Pagliery notes . "And with every pushback from Costello, the lawyer only lost more credibility — suffering the same fate he'd hoped for Cohen."

READ MORE: Senate Judiciary Committee Chair calls for Samuel Alito's recusal from January 6 cases

Mike Johnson reeling after aides' resignations strip him of 'brain trust': report

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) enjoyed a major victory when lawmakers — including a long list of Democrats — decisively voted down Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's (R-GA) proposal to oust him from his position. It remains to be seen whether Republicans will keep or lose their small House majority in the November elections, but for now, Johnson's speakership appears to be safe.

However, Johnson is still facing his share of challenges.

According to Punchbowl News reporters Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan, three "leading members" of the speaker's policy team will be leaving "by the end of May" — thus "robbing the House's top Republican of a critical core of experienced aides.

READ MORE: GOP donors say Mike Johnson’s fundraising won't 'ever get to the level of McCarthy'

Johnson aides Brittan Specht, Jason Yaworske and Preston Hill worked for former Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) when he was speaker and will be joining the well-known lobbying firm Michael Best Strategies.

"The departure, which is striking in size and in experience, strips Johnson of a significant amount of expertise in his domestic policy shop," Sherman and Bresnahan explain . "Specht was McCarthy's policy director and was key in crafting the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which raised the debt limit and set budget levels for two years."

The Punchbowl reporters add , "Yaworske is a well-respected adviser to the speaker on the appropriations and budget matters. As the House Appropriations Committee begins marking up the FY2025 spending bills, Yaworske's expertise on government spending is in demand. And Hill, a longtime figure in GOP leadership, was in charge of overseeing House Republican policy in burgeoning policy areas such as cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence as well as Education and the Workforce and Financial Services."

Sherman and Bresnahan note that Specht, Yaworske and Hill were valuable to Johnson by being "at the table during high-stakes negotiations."

READ MORE: Mike Johnson skips out on getting must-pass bill through House to praise Trump in Manhattan

"Team Johnson says they will be hiring new policy staff soon," according to the Punchbowl journalists . "But we’ll see who is willing to commit with the election only 167 days away."

McCarthy told Punchbowl , "Brittan, Jason, and Preston are the strongest brain trust in the Capitol. They have been involved in every major negotiation over the last seven years. Whether it's tax, appropriations, financial services, or defense, AI and the debt limit, they've been in the room and at the table with the highest stakes."

READ MORE: MTG 'lost a whole lot of respect in her district' after failing to oust Mike Johnson: report

Olympic torch ascends Cannes red carpet

French athletes carried the Olympic torch up the red carpet at the Cannes Film Festival on Tuesday, as it makes its way to the capital for the Summer Olympics.

The torch landed in the southern port city of Marseille earlier this month on board a 19th-century ship that had sailed it all the way from Greece.

It is now on a meandering route across France -- and its overseas territories -- building up to the Paris Games, which run from July 26 to August 11.

On the red carpet, French basketball player Iliana Rupert was among those to hold the torch to the sound of tunes from sporty film soundtracks -- including "Chariots of Fire," about runners training for the 1924 Paris Olympics.

Retired sprinter and three-time Olympic gold medallist Marie-Jo Perec had her turn, as did the chief organizer of the Games, Tony Estanguet.

The Olympic flame is set to travel through 400 towns and dozens of tourist attractions during its 12,000-kilometre (7,500-mile) journey through mainland France, as well as visiting overseas French territories in the Caribbean, Indian Ocean and Pacific.

Authorities have said anti-terror and riot police in vehicles as well as anti-drone specialists would be permanently but discreetly deployed as the torch moves around.

What Trump's weird WWE Hall of Fame speech tells us about his presidential debate strategy

Why the dow closing over 40,000 was a one-day story, hush money isn’t a crime. slush money is.

Copyright © 2024 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | Manage Preferences | Debug Logs For corrections contact [email protected] , for support contact [email protected] .

Prosecution rests in Trump hush money trial

Prosecutors rested their case Monday in Donald Trump’s trial on charges of falsifying business records, and defense attorneys began questioning their own witnesses ahead of closing arguments expected next week.

• ‘Are you staring me down right now?’ an angry Judge Merchan asks witness
• Trial testimony could wrap up today
• Merchan says the Trump trial will be dark for most of the week

Here's what to know:

Here's what to know, live coverage contributors 11.

5:03 p.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 5:03 p.m. EDT

4:53 p.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 4:53 p.m. EDT

4:46 p.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 4:46 p.m. EDT

4:41 p.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 4:41 p.m. EDT

4:38 p.m. EDT 4:38 p.m. EDT

4:37 p.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 4:37 p.m. EDT

4:36 p.m. EDT 4:36 p.m. EDT

4:20 p.m. EDT Key update 4:20 p.m. EDT

4:17 p.m. EDT 4:17 p.m. EDT

4:16 p.m. EDT 4:16 p.m. EDT

4:15 p.m. EDT 4:15 p.m. EDT

4:12 p.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 4:12 p.m. EDT

3:59 p.m. EDT 3:59 p.m. EDT

3:46 p.m. EDT 3:46 p.m. EDT

3:36 p.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 3:36 p.m. EDT

3:30 p.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 3:30 p.m. EDT

3:17 p.m. EDT 3:17 p.m. EDT

3:15 p.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 3:15 p.m. EDT

3:14 p.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 3:14 p.m. EDT

3:12 p.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 3:12 p.m. EDT

3:07 p.m. EDT 3:07 p.m. EDT

2:57 p.m. EDT Key update 2:57 p.m. EDT

2:52 p.m. EDT Key update 2:52 p.m. EDT

2:43 p.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 2:43 p.m. EDT

2:30 p.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 2:30 p.m. EDT

2:24 p.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 2:24 p.m. EDT

2:12 p.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 2:12 p.m. EDT

1:40 p.m. EDT 1:40 p.m. EDT

1:16 p.m. EDT 1:16 p.m. EDT

12:58 p.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 12:58 p.m. EDT

12:57 p.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 12:57 p.m. EDT

12:49 p.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 12:49 p.m. EDT

12:33 p.m. EDT 12:33 p.m. EDT

12:28 p.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 12:28 p.m. EDT

12:26 p.m. EDT 12:26 p.m. EDT

12:16 p.m. EDT 12:16 p.m. EDT

12:14 p.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 12:14 p.m. EDT

12:10 p.m. EDT Key update 12:10 p.m. EDT

12:08 p.m. EDT 12:08 p.m. EDT

12:04 p.m. EDT 12:04 p.m. EDT

12:00 p.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 12:00 p.m. EDT

11:54 a.m. EDT 11:54 a.m. EDT

11:30 a.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 11:30 a.m. EDT

11:23 a.m. EDT 11:23 a.m. EDT

11:17 a.m. EDT 11:17 a.m. EDT

11:01 a.m. EDT Key update 11:01 a.m. EDT

10:57 a.m. EDT 10:57 a.m. EDT

10:46 a.m. EDT 10:46 a.m. EDT

10:30 a.m. EDT 10:30 a.m. EDT

10:15 a.m. EDT 10:15 a.m. EDT

10:00 a.m. EDT 10:00 a.m. EDT

9:54 a.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 9:54 a.m. EDT

9:49 a.m. EDT 9:49 a.m. EDT

9:39 a.m. EDT 9:39 a.m. EDT

9:34 a.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 9:34 a.m. EDT

9:33 a.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 9:33 a.m. EDT

9:27 a.m. EDT 9:27 a.m. EDT

9:25 a.m. EDT Key update 9:25 a.m. EDT

9:09 a.m. EDT 9:09 a.m. EDT

9:03 a.m. EDT 9:03 a.m. EDT

8:54 a.m. EDT 8:54 a.m. EDT

8:46 a.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 8:46 a.m. EDT

8:43 a.m. EDT REPORTING FROM THE NEW YORK COURTHOUSE 8:43 a.m. EDT

8:38 a.m. EDT 8:38 a.m. EDT

8:26 a.m. EDT Key update 8:26 a.m. EDT

8:20 a.m. EDT 8:20 a.m. EDT

8:13 a.m. EDT Key update 8:13 a.m. EDT

8:06 a.m. EDT 8:06 a.m. EDT

8:00 a.m. EDT 8:00 a.m. EDT

7:59 a.m. EDT Key update 7:59 a.m. EDT

7:57 a.m. EDT 7:57 a.m. EDT

Trump's hush-money trial is almost over. Deliberations could begin as early as Thursday — unless Trump testifies.

• The Trump hush-money trial has finished its fourth week of testimony.
• Michael Cohen is set to finish on Monday as the prosecution's last direct-case witness.
• Will Trump testify? No one is saying, but if he takes the stand, deliberations would be pushed back.

After one week of jury selection and four weeks of prosecution testimony, Donald Trump's New York hush-money trial is now in its home stretch.

Jurors are on track to start deliberating either right before or right after the four-day Memorial Day weekend, as revealed in a scheduling discussion late Thursday.

That timing now largely depends on two yet-decided things: how much state Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan will rein in a looming battle of the experts, and whether Trump will take the stand in his own defense.

Trump previously said he would take the stand . Ultimately that decision will be his, not his lawyers, who have no legal power to stop him if he decides to address his jury directly.

But there has been no confirmation either way, and the judge and prosecutors remained in the dark as the trial wrapped up for the week.

Here is how next week is shaping up.

Monday: Cohen steps down, the defense case begins

Monday morning will begin with the final testimony by Michael Cohen, Trump's former all-around "fixer" and the prosecution's star — and final — direct-case witness.

Lead Trump defense lawyer Todd Blanche said Thursday that his cross-examination of Cohen will be done before the morning break, which typically comes around 11 a.m.

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger said her re-direct of Cohen will be "under an hour."

That gets Cohen off the stand by noon, at which point the prosecution will rest its direct case, and the defense will make a likely failed motion to toss the case on insufficient evidence.

Then, the defense case will begin.

Blanche said Thursday that Trump's side will call at least one witness for their direct case — Bradley A. Smith, commissioner of the Federal Election Commission from 2000-2005.

Prosecutors have alleged that Trump falsified 34 business records to conceal any of three underlying tax and campaign-finance crimes.

The defense hopes Smith can expound at length about federal campaign-finance law, in anticipation of what Blanche on Thursday called "sort of a battle of the experts."

A 'battle of the experts'

Assistant District Attorney Christopher Conroy, the prosecution's election law point man, complained Thursday that a battle of the experts is the last thing the judge should want.

Smith's testimony must be strictly limited in accordance with Merchan's own previous rulings, Conroy argued. Otherwise, jurors risk being confused by three interpretations of the law — from Smith, a prosecution rebuttal witness, and then the judge himself.

"Your honor, I think 95% of the proffered testimony that was just described flies directly in the face of your extremely clear March 18th Order, which expressly said that Mr. Smith may not testify regarding the interpretation and application of federal campaign finance laws," Conroy told the judge.

Merchan already has set strict limits on Smith, confining his testimony to general definitions of finance-law terms and the role of the Federal Election Campaign Commission. Commentary on trial evidence and interpretations of the law are expressly forbidden.

Merchan said Thursday that he will spend the weekend re-examining these guardrails in light of a recent defense request that the rules for his testimony be expanded.

Related stories

But the judge warned of Smith's testimony: "Until you hear differently from me, it's going to be limited to the very, very general definitions and very general background information."

If Trump indeed decides to take the stand, that testimony could also begin on Monday. If not, prosecutors could call their own election-law expert as part of a brief rebuttal case.

Will Trump testify?

As of late Thursday, the defense had yet to tell prosecutors, the judge, or the public if they will be calling Trump to testify.

Blanche had only this to say before court broke for the week: "That's another decision that we need to think through."

Tuesday: Either Trump or closing arguments

It's possible closing arguments will be made Tuesday.

But that would require an efficient and Trump-free Monday.

If Smith's testimony drags, if prosecutors and the defense mount an extensive rebuttal battle, and especially if Trump testifies, that could push summations into the next day of court, Thursday.

"I'm doing everything possible to avoid big breaks between summations, jury charge, jury instructions, and deliberations," Merchan told the parties Thursday.

"I will try not to break up summations, if at all possible," he said.

"And as we discussed in the robing room, the deliberations should follow immediately after the jury charge," he added.

Wednesday: no court

Early Thursday, the judge asked jurors if they could work Wednesday, which is usually a day off for the trial. Merchan uses Wednesdays to handle his other cases.

But the jurors asked to keep the day off, "So that's off the table," the judge told the parties during a break in Cohen's testimony.

Trump, meanwhile, is due to appear in court Wednesday for oral arguments in his federal classified-documents case in Florida.

That hearing is for "a very small motion and our intention is to seek permission from Judge Cannon that President Trump be excused," Blanche said of Judge Aileen Cannon.

"In the past, she has agreed," Blanche said.

Thursday: Deliberations could begin

Again, if the scheduling stars align, deliberations could begin Thursday, the last trial day before the four-day holiday.

A Thursday start to deliberations would have to follow a very productive Monday and Tuesday.

Before deliberations can begin, jurors need to hear the entirety of the defense case — with or without Trump.

They need to hear any rebuttal case, which would likely be centered on the testimony of Smith.

They also need to hear both sides' closing arguments. After that, the judge would have to instruct the jurors on the underlying law and on the rules of deliberations.

The likelihood of deliberations beginning Thursday increases if Merchan can get the parties, jurors, and court staff to agree to work longer days on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday.

"I'm going to look into that, and see if we could start early" on Tuesday and Thursday, Merchan told the parties before breaking for the weekend.

"I think that we can work a little bit late on some days," he added.

One of the trial's six alternates can only work until 1 p.m. Thursday, but alternates are typically dismissed at the start of deliberations, so that may not prove a problem.

"We will play it by ear and see how that plays out," Merchan said.

Watch: Trump dozes off at the start of his hush-money trial

• Main content