The Oklahoma Bar Journal November 2025

being applied in closing argument would start with an issue from trial, such as “problems with the eyewitness identification.” Other anticipated common chapters in any given trial might be “phys ical evidence” or “investigative failures.” Another obvious place to look for “chapter headings” would be in the jury instructions, which can provide a memorable chapter for a juror to weave those instructions into a closing argu ment. When done well, the “chap ter” technique (with the artful placement of facts (testimony)), the judge’s own instructions and counsel’s “theory of the case” or “theme” will help a juror connect the dots together to a winning verdict for counsel. STEP 2: BELOW EACH CHAPTER, LIST THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Next, counsel should dig deep into every report, transcript, inter view, photograph or any other piece of evidence and compile them into building blocks that support the theory of the case. Once obtained, list them under the appropriate chapter headings. Again, in returning to “identifi cation issues,” counsel may list: “Witness briefly saw a vehicle pass by his home and was unable to provide description;” “Later, gave description of dark-in-color, small truck;” and “In third inter view, description evolved into a dark blue SUV.” These differences, when packaged together properly and memorably, are the factual piece of the argument that gives credence to counsel’s arguments elsewhere when all that is avail able is a “reasonable inference.”

If a case requires a “legal” argu ment, counsel must find a way to argue without invoking a nonemo tional legal technicality itself. It can remind a juror that those technical ities are tied to the same principles that so appeal to their hearts. 56 For example, in the criminal context, to most jurors, the requirement of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” may appear to be just a legal technicality. Without discussing the “legal” aspect of it, as the trial judge will mention to them, it is the big picture principle of the fear of convicting an innocent person that resonates with a juror. Finally, in preparing the closing argument, it is always best to keep to the adage of “keep it simple, stupid.” 57 STEP 1: ARGUMENT ‘CHAPTERS’ “All the world’s a stage ... and one man in his time plays many parts.” – William Shakespeare, As You Like It , Act 2, Sec. 7 Without some framework for processing, jurors may get lost while the story is being told. It is much worse if the jurors forget what was said. An attorney cannot effectively argue when the jury can see that the attorney does not appear to believe their own argument, and this can be com bated early by compiling those undisputed facts that support the desired verdict. Once listed, place them into related groups as “chapters” with a working title. The “chapter method” provides an easy structure. Many may recog nize the “chapter method” from a popular technique (and book) on how to do cross-examination. 58 It is an effective tool to break down a cross-examination into a series of self-contained chapters. One example of the chapter method

below an objective standard of reasonableness,” 50 and there was “probability sufficient to under mine the outcome.” 51 PREPARING TO PREPARE: THE WRITTEN WORD VERSUS THE SPOKEN WORD As a general rule, no one talks the same way they write, so it is suggested that counsel, in their preparations, talk first and write second. More importantly, counsel should always choose the words carefully. 52 In developing his own skills as an orator, Abraham Lincoln studied how poets and orators expressed themselves by noting how they would turn a phrase or use figures of speech, and he admired the “great truths greatly told.” 53 In preparation for his own speeches during the 1960 presidential campaign, John F. Kennedy admitted he would pour a brandy and smoke a cigar as he spoke along with recordings of Winston Churchill’s speeches. 54 Counsel should be mindful to also avoid making legal arguments to a jury or to lose that connection by speaking “legalese” to a jury. Legal arguments ( e.g. , “beyond a reasonable doubt”) are rarely per suasive to a juror, and it is advis able to allow statements on the law ( i.e. , jury instructions) to be heard from the judge first. However, jurors can be persuaded by describ ing those legal arguments into “big picture” principles. Everyone can relate to justice, fairness and what is right and wrong. In that same breath, attorneys should also avoid “cop talk,” but when it cannot be avoided, a criminal defense or civil rights plaintiff’s attorney can point out that it was the choice of words by the prosecutor/government/ insurance defense. 55

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

NOVEMBER 2025 | 37

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL