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. 

A closing argument in a medical malpractice case is a rhetorical highwire act, requiring a good attorney to ensure jurors understand key medical concepts while arguing how those concepts apply to the the specific case at hand. Spend too much time reiterating general medical concepts and risk losing the jurors' attention. Spend too little time on those topics and risk confusing the jury as you argue the evidence. In a $10 million trial over the stroke-related death of an emergency room patient, Mary Jaye Hall's closing efficiently combined complex medical information with powerful argument to strike at the theory of plaintiff's case.