Closing Arguments

Now You Get to Argue

The closing argument is the one part of the trial where attorneys can openly argue their interpretation of the evidence. Unlike the opening statement, you are not limited to previewing facts. You can draw inferences, point out contradictions, appeal to logic, and directly ask the judge or jury to reach a specific verdict. This is your moment to weave everything the court has heard into a coherent, persuasive narrative.

The most effective closing arguments do not simply rehash the testimony. They organize the evidence around the theory of the case and explain why the evidence compels only one conclusion. Every sentence should serve one of three purposes: reminding the court of favorable evidence, explaining why that evidence matters, or undermining the other side's case.

A critical mistake many mock trial competitors make is preparing their closing before the trial. While you should have an outline ready, the best closings respond to what actually happened in the courtroom. If a witness was impeached during cross-examination, reference that impeachment specifically. If the other side failed to call a witness or introduce an exhibit they promised in their opening, point that out. The closing that feels spontaneous and responsive to the trial always scores higher than the one that was clearly written days in advance.

Structure of an Effective Closing

Open with your theme. The same theme you introduced in your opening should reappear in your closing, now supported by everything the court has heard. 'We told you at the beginning of this trial that this case is about a promise that was broken. Now you have heard the evidence, and that is exactly what it shows.'

Walk through the evidence element by element. For each legal element you must prove (or that the other side must prove), identify the specific testimony and exhibits that satisfy it. Be precise: 'Dr. Reyes testified that the financial records showed $217,000 in unexplained transfers. That testimony was not contradicted by any other witness.' Specificity is more persuasive than generality.

Address the other side's strongest points. If you ignore them, the judge will wonder why. If you confront them and explain why they do not change the outcome, you demonstrate confidence and thoroughness. 'The defense will tell you that Ms. Park had access to the same accounts. But access is not the same as motive, and not a single witness testified that Ms. Park had any reason to alter those records.'

End with a clear, direct request. 'For all of these reasons, the evidence requires a verdict of guilty on both counts.' Do not be vague. Tell the judge exactly what you want.