As of my last count, I have conducted over 200 jury trials in the past 25 years, handling criminal defense cases in Los Angeles, throughout California, and even some federal cases nationwide. A closing argument is probably the most important aspect of a trial because it's where the lawyers argue for their positions.

My approach to a criminal trial is strategic. I develop a theory of my case at the outset and carry it through the trial. The theory culminates in the closing argument, a strategic opportunity to speak frankly with the jury about our case.

During the closing argument, we have the power to challenge the prosecutor's evidence and case. We can delve into the details and assert, 'My client is not guilty, and here's why,' listing every single reason.

You can discuss the concepts of 'reasonable doubt,' which means the jury must have a reasonable uncertainty about the defendant's guilt, and the 'presumption of innocence,' which means the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. To put it simply, the prosecutors have the responsibility to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If they fail to do so, the defendant is to be considered innocent.

So, cross-examination ties everything together in a criminal defense case. If you're not an effective arguer and you cannot effectively give a good closing argument, then you're not going to be able to win your jury trial. For instance, if a witness for the prosecution claims to have seen the defendant at the crime scene, a well-prepared cross-examination can reveal inconsistencies in their testimony, casting doubt on their credibility.

Another thing is as a criminal defense attorney, your role is not just to defend your client, but also to challenge the prosecutor's closing argument. This takes a certain person.

As a defense attorney, it's not just about defending your client. It's about being prepared to dismantle the prosecutor's closing argument. This requires a certain skill ability to listen to their argument, anticipate their points, and then effectively counter them in your own closing argument.

What's crucial about it is that in a criminal defense jury trial, the defense has only one opportunity for a closing argument. The way it works is that at the end of the evidence, because the prosecutors have the burden, they get to go first, present their closing arguments, and then the defense gets to present theirs.

They get to sit there and listen, and then the prosecutor has the last word. They get to talk one more time about closing arguments. So, as a defense attorney, you have to be able to destroy their first closing argument and then be prepared that they're going to come back around you and basically refute every single argument they have before they even say it.

I've noticed that some prosecutors will reserve some of their arguments for the end because they know the criminal defense attorney in a jury trial won't be able to come back with a closing argument after they've finished.

Really, what you're doing in a closing argument is you're going through the evidence that the prosecutors presented. If you have presented any evidence, obviously, you're going to go through that evidence as well, and then you're going to talk to the jury about it and say – listen, what does this really prove?

Here are the elements of the crime that they had to prove. Here's the evidence they presented, and here's the evidence I think you would see based on what they presented.

This is where you poke holes in the prosecution's case. This is where you demonstrate to them that you conducted cross-examinations of their witnesses to prove that they did not meet their requirements. They did not meet their burden as prosecutors. A lot of times, in the end, I talk about what's called an abiding conviction of guilt. T

That's one of the jury instructions, and if they don't have that. Suppose you can't look back at jurors years from now and say, yeah, we made the right decision in finding that defendant guilty. In that case, you absolutely must find him not guilty.

You really can get some powerful arguments in at the closing argument if you properly set up your theme, you've properly examined the prosecution's witnesses, and if you've even put on evidence yourself, you can then go back and point to that evidence and point to your cross-examination and say look, they did not prove their case.

They did not meet their burden, and because the defendant starts with the presumption that they're innocent unless the prosecutors meet their high standard of proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find this defendant not guilty.

That's one of the things I discuss with clients when I sit down with them. I say, listen, if this case goes to trial, they present their evidence, we present our evidence – here's what it's going to look at at the end to a jury, and here's what the jury is going to have to find in order for you to be found not guilty.

Suppose we don't feel very confident that they'll find you not guilty after the closing argument in this criminal trial. In that case, you're not going to trial because if you do, you'll likely lose; you're probably going to end up with a much harsher punishment than if you had just worked out a resolution with the prosecutor or through the judge.

This underscores the importance of a well-prepared and effectively delivered closing argument. So, we're talking about a jury trial right from the beginning.

The themes of what can be proved and what can't be proved when it comes to a criminal case, and that's why the closing argument is so important to address when it comes to a criminal matter pending in any of the Los Angeles County courts.