As critical as a well-prepared closing is, sometimes the moments with the biggest impact are delivered as a counterpunch to a remark by opposing counsel.  That’s how James Butler framed the 60 seconds of silence during rebuttal argument in Walden v. Chrysler Group LLC.

By the time opening statements begin, the average juror has already been overwhelmed with information. Voir dire, instructions from the bench, even the courtroom environment are all new and confusing to many jurors, making it difficult for them to fully understand details delivered in an opening. Under these circumstances, too many charts, models, and graphs intended to explain key terms can, in the wrong circumstances, confuse and distract the overwhelmed juror. Particularly where complex terms and ideas are central to a case, opting for a basic, simple demonstration of a theory can often be a powerful tool. That's the route The Cochran Firm's Jane Lamberti took in explaining the deadly buildup of fluid in a sleep center patient's lungs. 

Toxic tort cases involving dangerous exposure from decades earlier can be rife with problems linking the allegedly toxic product to your client's disease. In some cases, you'll have to ask jurors to infer connections based on limited documentary evidence and no "smoking gun" proof. James Ferraro was faced with a similar situation in a mesothelioma suit against Georgia Pacific, but, in a closing that connected the dots from wallboard to his client's cancer, won an eight-figure verdict. 

When the patient at the center of a medical malpractice case dies following a relatively routine medical procedure, the defense must often overcome a natural tendency among jurors to believe the healthcare staff involved must have committed some error. During closing arguments of Bailey v. Corso, Daniel Huff delivered a powerful appeal to reason that convinced jurors his client, an Emory Healthcare surgeon, was blameless in the procedure that punctured his patient's heart. 

Rebuttal of a closing argument can be one of the most difficult elements of trial for a plaintiff's attorney. It's your last opportunity to speak on behalf of your client and the last words jurors will hear from either side before they deliberate. However, the rebuttal's focus on a defense argument typically given moments earlier means you don't have the preparation time you have for your initial summation. In Van Zyl v. Fain, Keith Mitnik delivered a powerful rebuttal to the defense's damage argument, and ultimately won nearly $19 million for his client.