CLOSING ARGUMENTS IN MANAFORT TRIAL: HOW LONG IS TOO LONG?

[Photo from wikipedia]

Today, closing arguments began in the criminal trial of former Trump campaign coordinator Paul Manafort.  According to various news reports, both sides asked the Judge for up to two hours for closing arguments.  Judge T.S. Ellis reportedly voiced skepticism about the lawyers being able to keep the jury's attention for that long!

What do you think? Should closing arguments be kept under an hour? Are jurors less attentive than they were one hundred years ago, when closing arguments often lasted for hours?

As a former federal prosecutor in Augusta, Georgia, I handled a few major complex fraud and public corruption cases in which my closing argument reached 90 minutes in length. However, I always tried to remember that if you talk too long, you will lose your jury!

OPENING STATEMENTS IN MANAFORT JURY TRIAL

[DOJ Seal from wikipedia]

A lot has been written about the ongoing federal criminal jury trial of Paul Manafort.  Today, I don't intend to discuss the merits of the Mueller team's case against the former campaign coordinator of President Trump.  Instead, I want to focus on the government prosecutor's manner of making his opening statement.  He read it!

In particular, according to news reports, the prosecutor read his entire opening statement to the jury.  Reading an opening statement or a closing argument is a pet peeve of mine!  In my opinion, no trial lawyer should ever READ an opening statement!  Instead, I believe a good trial lawyer will be so prepared that he or she will be able to speak, without reading, their statement or argument.  Nobody likes to be read to.  Also, by speaking, instead of reading, a trial lawyer is better able to both make eye contact with jurors and to display a greater degree of confidence and preparedness!

As a former federal prosecutor in Augusta, Georgia for over twenty years, I prosecuted and saw countless federal criminal trials.  In my opinion, the best lawyers never read their openings or closings!

I am sure the government's attorney in this case is a fine lawyer!  But in my opinion, opening statements should be spoken but NOT read!

What do you think?

A Goolsby "War Story:" Whose Side Am I On?

As you probably know, I am a former Georgia state and federal prosecutor.  I left the U.S. Attorney's Office several years ago, after a 20 year career, to go into private practice, when my oldest son graduated from law school.  Now, I am an Augusta, Georgia criminal defense attorney!  While it has been a major change, I wanted the chance to work with my son.  I am also happy to report that my second son will graduate from law school and join us here in several months!  And I am equally delighted that our third son will join us at the Goolsby Law Firm when he graduates from law school in a couple of years!  The Goolsby Law Firm will be composed of a father and three sons!  We will truly be a family law firm!

But that is not the point of this post!  The point I wanted to make involves the fact that lawyers often face challenges when they "switch sides."  One of my fears is revealed by a true "war story" told about a local criminal defense lawyer.  Like me, he had been a prosecutor for most of his career and then had switched to the "dark side!"  Soon, after entering private practice, the old prosecutor was defending a man accused of armed robbery.  Everything went fine during the trial, until closing argument.  Then, before he could catch himself, out of habit, the former D.A. urged the jury to "return a GUILTY verdict!"  Can you imagine his embarrassment?  Can you imagine how his client felt?

As a criminal defense lawyer, (and former federal prosecutor), I hope and pray that, if I keep telling and re-telling this story, then maybe it will never happen to me!

Closing Arguments in Criminal Cases: How Long or How Short Should They Be?

[Photo from Wikipedia.org]

As you may know, as a former state and federal prosecutor, and currently, as a criminal defense lawyer, I have prosecuted, (and now defended), literally hundreds of jury trials over the years.  Today, I want to talk a little bit about the length of closing arguments.  In other words, how long or how short should they be?  Put another way, do you believe that juries of today have the same attention span as juries of one hundred years ago?

As I am writing this post, I am listening to the closing arguments in the Casey Anthony murder trial.  It is expected that the closing arguments in this high profile trial will last only a couple of hours each.

But did you know that, years ago, closing arguments often lasted for many hours, or even for days?  For example, in 1913, during the infamous Georgia trial of Leo M. Frank for murdering Mary Phagan, the closing argument of Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey lasted a whopping nine hours!  This was not unusual!

Today, on the other hand, closing arguments seldom last longer than in the Casey Anthony murder case.  Why?  How are jurors different today?  Here are my guesses.  One reason, in my opinion, is that the psyche, or expectation, of today's juror is much different than the juror of one hundred years ago.  The pace of life was also slower then.  Also, back then, jurors were conditioned or accustomed to long sermons from long-winded politicians and preachers.  Maybe they just expected the same down at the courthouse.  

But in our fast-paced, instant messaging society of today, jurors simply expect to receive more information much more quickly.  Arguably, our attention spans are shorter today, too.  For instance, jurors today expect every t.v. drama to be solved within the hour and before the last commercial!

Regardless of the reasons, closing arguments in today's criminal cases will never be as long as in cases tried one hundred years ago.  But perhaps we are all better off!  Can you imagine having to sit still and listen to any lawyer for nine hours today!?  What do you think?

Illustrations For Closing Arguments in Criminal Cases

You might justifiably be wondering why does a criminal defense attorney have a picture of a cock roach in a blog about white collar crime! (And please hold the comments or jokes about criminal lawyers and roaches!)

The point I wanted to make in this post is about the importance to lawyers, (both civil and criminal), of using illustrations in closing argument at trial. The relevance of the cock roach will become apparent below! As the son of a Baptist preacher, I once marveled at how my father kept his congregations enthralled through his use of poignant or funny illustrations. I have learned that the same is true for jurors. By weaving in both quotes and illustrations, a good trial attorney can help keep the jury interested and focused on the points he or she is making.

For example, in one of my public corruption trials, (as a former federal prosecutor), I wanted to emphasize to the jury the point that the defendant politician knew about all the corrupt activities going on around him. To illustrate the point, I told the jury that, "Not even a bashful cock roach could sneak into his business without him knowing about it!" I also used a quote from the Bible, during the same closing argument, "Do not lie, do not steal, do not deceive one another." I won my case!

Now, to be honest, I doubt very seriously that I won this federal criminal case simply by using illustrations in my closing argument! But I AM convinced that, by using illustrations, a trial lawyer helps keep the jury focused and better explains important points. And I'll bet even an intelligent cock roach would agree with me on this point!