Anatomy of a Trial: Attorney Tim Sledd Discusses Closing Arguments

Summary

---

Murder Sheet: Anatomy of a Trial — Attorney Tim Sledd Discusses Closing Arguments

Episode Date: February 9, 2026
Guest: Tim Sledd, Chief Public Defender, Lawrence County, Indiana

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, hosts Áine Cain and Kevin Greenlee kick off their new “Anatomy of a Trial” series, which aims to demystify crucial stages of a criminal trial for non-lawyers. Their guest, veteran attorney Tim Sledd, provides an in-depth exploration of closing arguments. Sledd draws on his diverse experience as a public defender, prosecutor, and judge to break down how closing arguments work, legal and practical boundaries, techniques lawyers use to persuade jurors, and the real emotional stakes behind “the last word” in a trial.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. What Is a Closing Argument?

• Definition: Closing arguments are the stage after all evidence is presented; attorneys characterize the evidence for jurors to argue for their client’s position ([02:23]).
• Evidence Reminder: Only testimony and exhibits admitted during trial constitute evidence; closing arguments are not evidence themselves.

“Closing argument is my favorite part of a trial… the evidence is done… Closing argument is the characterization of the evidence that the lawyers make to try to sway the jury to buy their position.”
— Tim Sledd, [02:23]

---

2. Structure and Purpose of Closing Arguments

• Order:
  • State/prosecution goes first.
  • Defense follows.
  • State gets a rebuttal focused on defense’s arguments ([03:46]-[05:29]).
• Purpose:
  • Prosecutors: Link evidence to each crime element, clear confusion, prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Defense: Inject doubt, challenge the state’s case, humanize defendant, emphasize the high burden of proof.

“The defense in their closing argument is often going to be saying what else? Where else? Why not? How could it?... If there's reasonable doubt, you must tell the state they failed their test and find my client not guilty.”
— Tim Sledd, [04:20]

---

3. Planning and Delivery Strategies

• Start with the End: Sledd plans his closing from the beginning; depositions and trial moves are shaped to create sound bites for closing ([06:18]).
• Storytelling Techniques:
  • Prosecutors opt for clear outlines and logical connections.
  • Defense uses narrative framing—drawing jurors emotionally into the client’s story, highlighting reasonable doubt.

“From the state perspective... I want to have a clean outline... I want to be able to walk through those without having to look at my notes.”
— Tim Sledd, [07:16]

“From the defense side, I'm wanting it to be a story... humanize my client... draw them into the gravity of the decision they're about ready to make because it is grave.”
— Tim Sledd, [09:43]

• Scripting vs. Improvisation: More experienced attorneys rely on outlines, adjusting to the room’s energy, rather than reading scripts ([12:09]).
• Engagement: Effective closers observe jurors for attention and try to “seed” counterarguments for the jury to remember during the opponent’s rebuttal.

“I want my voice to be in the back of your head as they're talking to you, I want you to be saying, how would Tim respond to that?”
— Tim Sledd, [13:41]

---

4. The Power—and Danger—of Closing Arguments

• Potential to Sway: A powerful closing can tip a weak case; conversely, a weak closing can undermine a strong case ([16:38]).

“A strong presentation can overcome weak evidence and that's dangerous if that's coming from the state. I believe a weak performance can underwhelm a defense... passion from a defense lawyer can carry a lot of weight.”
— Tim Sledd, [16:38]

• Mentor Wisdom: Sledd recalls advice: “Sometimes you have the facts, sometimes you have the law... Blame the police if you don’t have either.” ([18:02])

---

5. Ethical and Legal Boundaries in Closing Arguments

• Strict Rules:
  • Cannot discuss potential penalties ([10:33], [19:00]).
  • Must not state facts not in evidence; doing so can result in judicial admonishment or mistrial.
  • Can’t reference prior bad acts or engage in character attacks unless legally justified ([19:11]).
  • Defense and prosecution each have boundaries—for instance, rape shield laws protecting victim character.

“Arguing facts not in evidence is an objection that can be made that leads to an admonishment from the judge... It can be a problem. You can actually get a mistrial if it breaks one of the like rules of evidence.”
— Tim Sledd, [19:11]

---

6. Emotional Toll and “Letting Go”

• Feeling of Finality: Delivering closing arguments is both urgent and nerve-wracking, as after sitting down the case is out of the attorney’s hands ([22:38]).
• Described as “horrible”—lawyer loses control, undergoes physiological stress (“endorphin dump,” flushed neck) until verdict is delivered.

“There's a point where you are done speaking and you have to sit down. And for me, that's where there's an endorphin dump... because up until that point I have some control.”
— Tim Sledd, [22:38]

---

7. Memorable Closings and Impact on Juries

• Storytelling Example: Sledd shares a closing for a drug case, analogizing the defendant’s “tools of the trade” to his carpenter father’s workshop, to argue the jury could use common sense to bridge circumstantial evidence ([25:45]).

“You wouldn’t need his DNA… to know that he’s a master carpenter. In this case, we have the tools of the trade... You have the product of his trade.”
— Tim Sledd, [27:31]

• Jury Reactions: Jurors often cite closing arguments as pivotal in their decisions, though Sledd hopes they truly wait to decide after all evidence is in ([30:26]).

---

8. Common Mistakes in Closing Arguments

• Over-Regurgitation:
  • Simply rehashing all evidence loses jurors’ attention.
  • Better to concisely tie evidence to key points ([31:10]).
• Misgauging Strengths/Weaknesses:
  • Poor focus can highlight weak arguments and weaken overall impact.

---

9. Observing Jurors and Final Thoughts

• Reading the Jury: Sledd avoids trying to “read” jurors after closing—says he’s usually wrong. It’s tempting but unreliable ([33:55]).
• Advice to Listeners: Don’t equate a strong closing with the right verdict; closing arguments are not evidence and shouldn’t override the rest of the trial in your judgment ([34:47]-[36:36]):

“When you're watching or listening to closing arguments, you have to remember they're arguments, they're not evidence... You really don't [know who will win] from just listening to closings.”
— Tim Sledd, [34:47]

---

Notable Quotes & Moments with Timestamps

• On planning closings:
  “Everything that happens in a trial is to get me to where I want to be. My sound bites for my closing argument.”
  — Tim Sledd, [06:23]

• Defense storytelling:
  “...I put the whole case in the frame of how it happened versus an outline... There’s a big black hole in this timeline... maybe that happened, possibly, probably, likely.”
  — Tim Sledd, [09:22]-[10:35]

• Jury persuasion and emotional stakes:
  “Would you be willing to put your children on the table for this?”
  — Tim Sledd, [10:21]

• Strong closings and weak cases:
  “A good closing argument can make up for the deficit in weak cases.”
  — Tim Sledd, [16:38]

• Emotional experience:
  “Physiologically I feel like this redness happen in the back of my neck... My body’s just kind of dumping and my temperature comes up because... it’s now outside of my control.”
  — Tim Sledd, [22:38]

• Impact on jurors:
  “They looked through one of the pictures... and on the floor... there was a Christmas package... The methamphetamine... was found... in a shoebox that was wrapped in Christmas paper. And the jurors drew the nexus...”
  — Tim Sledd, [28:51]

• On closing as argument, not evidence:
  "It’s best that you don't just jump into a case at the closing and try to make your decision on whether or not the jury's result matches how well closing arguments went."
  — Tim Sledd, [34:47]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• What is a closing argument? [02:20]–[03:39]
• Structure/purpose of closings: [03:46]–[06:15]
• Planning strategies: [06:18]–[11:58]
• Scripting vs. improvisation: [12:09]–[14:50]
• Closings’ power/dangers: [16:38]–[19:00]
• Legal/ethical constraints: [19:11]–[22:18]
• Emotional experience: [22:38]–[25:35]
• Memorable closings: [25:45]–[30:26]
• Common mistakes: [31:10]–[33:39]
• Juror perceptions: [33:39]–[34:42]
• Advice to listeners: [34:47]–[36:36]

---

Conclusion

Tim Sledd’s deep dive distills the practical, strategic, and emotional complexities of closing arguments in criminal trials. Closings are critical moments for both attorneys and jurors, yet they are bounded by ethics and evidence law. Ultimately, Sledd underscores that while “the last word” can be powerful, it exists alongside and must be supported by the evidence and testimony delivered throughout the trial. A must-listen for anyone interested in courtroom drama—and in how real justice is argued.

Transcript

[A]

We talk about a criminal trial as if it was a single event, but of course, that's not entirely true. A trial is made up of multiple parts, starting with jury selection and going all the way to the delivery of a verdict. Not all of these stages of a trial always get attention, but each of them can be tremendously important.

[B]

But if you're not an attorney, it can get confusing trying to understand these stages of a trial and exactly why each is a crucial part of the process. That's why we decided to launch a new occasional series we're calling Anatomy of a Trial. In each segment, we'll talk to an experienced trial lawyer who will go in depth with us about a particular piece of a trial.

[A]

Our expert today is Tim Sledd. He is the chief public defender in Indiana's Lawrence County. He's also served as a judge and is the county's chief deputy prosecutor. He's a great guest. We've had him on plenty of times and hope to have him on plenty of times in the future.

[B]

Today, Tim will be speaking to us about closing arguments in criminal trials. What are prosecutors and defense attorneys allowed to say and what are they barred from bringing up? What techniques do lawyers use to stick the landing, so to speak? And how important are closing arguments really when it comes to convincing jurors? My name is Anya Cain. I'm a journalist.

[A]

And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[B]

And this is the Murder Sheet.

[A]

We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases. We're the Murder Sheet and this is.

[B]

Anatomy of a Trial. Attorney Tim Sled discusses closing arguments.

[C]

Sam.

[A]

Obvious big, broad question. What is a closing argument?

[C]

Okay, closing argument is my favorite part of a trial, no matter which which side of the case you're on, because the evidence is done. What is evidence in a trial? Evidence in a trial is what comes in through testimony and exhibits. So the voir jury selection is not evidence. Opening statements are not evidence. Opening statements are a summation of what the attorneys forecast the evidence will be. But when the state has its case and it calls its first witness, the words that come out of that witness's mouth are evidence. The documents, exhibits, pictures, those are evidence. Defense gets to cross examine, then present their case. If they have a case or want to present a case, that will be evidence. And then there is the famous saying, the state rests or the defense rests. That is a very, very important statement to be made in court because that's the close of evidence. Nothing new gets to come in Closing argument is the characterization of the evidence that the lawyers make to try to sway the jury to buy their position.

[B]

In the case as an attorney, as a defense attorney or a prosecutor. What is the goal with a closing argument?

[C]

The prosecutor's goal in a closing argument is to show that they have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime with the evidence. When I was a prosecutor, I often viewed it as. Because so really quickly, closing argument has the following steps. The state presents the first round of closing argument. The defense gets to, if they like, have a closing argument, and then the state gets to rebut that closing argument, address issues that were raised in the defense closing argument, and that's it. Okay, so the, the state has in, in its initial closing argument needs to be doing what I, I call clearing the smoke out of the room, boiling this thing down to the essence of these are the elements. This is the evidence that was presented that matches those elements or satisfies each one of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Keep it relatively sterile and clean. The defense in their closing argument is often going to be saying what else? Where else? Why not? How could it? And ask. Asking the jury to delve into the questions that hopefully are in the jury's head. If you're the defense, hopefully in the jury's head, that you can say, those are doubts, folks, and those are reasonable doubts, folks. And so if there's reasonable doubt, remember the judge's instructions. If there's reasonable doubt, you must tell the state they failed their test and find my client not guilty. There's the state saying we, we satisfy it, we passed our test. There's the defense saying they didn't pass their test. And then there's the state standing back up and saying, ignore what they just said. We did pass our, our test.

[B]

This may be kind of a stupid question, but why does the state get to go twice in the defense only once?

[C]

Because the state has the burden of proof. It is, it is the state's burden of proof. And they get the opportunity first they have to make their threshold case. If they don't make their threshold case, it's a whole nother problem. You can ask for a directed verdict, but if they make their threshold case, then you get to, the defense gets to get up there. They get one bite at that apple and then you would go back and forth, back and forth, back and forth ad nauseam if you, if you didn't call a halt to it at some point. So they say the, the state gets to have a limited rebuttal and it's supposed to be limited to the things that were addressed from the defense.

[A]

How do you plan or organize a closing statement?

[C]

It's where I start. When I was a prosecutor, it was where I started. And as a defense lawyer, it's where I start. Everything that happens in a trial is to get me to where I want to be. My sound bites for my closing argument. When I'm doing depositions, I'm. I'm getting the sound bites that I want to be able to regurgitate to the jury that are. Doubt that if I'm the state, I'm. I'm every. Everything I'm doing before I get to closing argument is to get me to my closing argument. So I start there. From the state perspective, from the government perspective, from the prosecutor's perspective, I want to have a clean outline of the elements and the evidence that are going to match up to that. And I want to be able to walk through those without having to look at my notes. I want to be able to say the state has to prove that John Jones on this date touched Katie Jones in a rude, insulin or angry manner and it caused her pain. And we know that that happened because John Jones, we know that's Jon Jones over there because Detective Smith said that's Jon Jones touched. And we know that he touched because you heard Katie get in here and say that he hit her. And he hit her when he was angry. And he was angry because we heard all about his anger. We heard his anger was about, you know, the unpaid water bill and that when he hit her, it caused her pain. You saw the pictures. You saw the blood coming out of her nose. You saw the bruised eye. All of us talk. When we talk to you in jury selection, we talked to you. Have you ever fallen down and gotten a scrape? Got a boo boo? It hurt, didn't it? Your. Your kids cry when that happens. They cry because it hurts. You know this. She. She felt the pain. And we proved beyond a reasonable doubt that. And I want to be able to walk them through that. Then I gotta. Then I formulate my questions for examination to get to those. The other thing from the state side that you do is you anticipate what. What's the defense's response to this going to be. And then my goal was always in rebuttal, to have it be just a story, you know, just a story of the facts and to have that story prepared so that I am addressing what the defense said. But I'm leaving the jury with a narrative from the defense side. I'm wanting it to be a story. I'm wanting it to humanize my client. I'm wanting it to be not so matter of fact. Matter of fact is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You know, not so matter of fact. Is this. Is this good enough? We. We recently did a. A trial, and it was a. A case of science, a case where my client had engaged in some bad conduct, but the bad conduct wasn't the conduct for which he had been charged. So, you know, I had hit in jury selection and I had hit throughout the case that maybe my client did the thing is not guilty. Possibly did the thing is not guilty. Probably did the thing is not guilty. Likely did the thing is not guilty. There's clear and convincing evidence that my client did the thing. Not guilty. And so when I'm telling the story, I put the whole case in the frame of how it happened versus an outline. I made it. What did you hear? You heard about a day, a night, an evening. You heard about people. You heard about how all of these things are going on. And it was their job, the state's job, to bring you the evidence that solves this problem right here with this timeline. There's a big black hole in this timeline. We know it happened before, and of course we know what happened after. But what happened in this timeline, they were supposed to bring that to you. Maybe that happened. Possibly.

[A]

Probably.

[C]

Likely. I said. I even said to the jury, are we. Are we. Did we even get to likely that happened? Given all of this stuff, infusing a whole bunch of doubt in there, and then reminding them, you know, that they have instructions to follow, that they have rules to unfollow that this is not about. Do you like the cop more than you like my client? This is not a popularity contest, that it's not a fair trial. There's no such thing as a fair trial to the state in a criminal case. The burdens on them beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest burden of all. Would you be willing to gamble your kids on it? Because the evidence that it would take for them to take your kids away is clear and convincing evidence. This is a higher standard than that beyond a reasonable doubt. So would you be willing to put your children on the table for this to show them that importance? Defense has to really draw them into the gravity of the decision they're about ready to make because it is grave. Now, we are not permitted in closing arguments to discuss potential penalties for the offense. So they can't. They. We are not allowed to speak to their interests as to what will happen to this guy if we do or don't find him guilty. Some lawyers are very fast and loose with that and play there anyway. But you, you're, it's, it's an ethical violation in my opinion, to do it.

[B]

From a practical standpoint. You mentioned, like, the planning that goes into this and crafting the statement. How much of what is said is typically like scripted versus ad libbed and like, does it just depend on the case?

[C]

Depends on the case. Depends on style, I think, and experience. So for me, it's not scripted from the standpoint that I've reviewed a script, I typically have my points that I want to make my outline of, of the central components of the case and I will have that with me at some, some place so that I can refer back to it because I do get in, I get mind fog occasionally or in the heat of the battle, I white out. You're like, oh, where was I going with that? So it's nice to have that little bit of crutch there. I think really good trial lawyers would tell you that that's bad. You need to, you need to be able, you need to care and know this case so much that you can't do anything but spout your, your case, which is true. But in a. I'm a, I'm a public defender with a high volume and I want to protect my clients. I'm going to make sure I have the information with me that I need. But most of what I'm doing is going to be ad. It's ad lib with my, within my framework. You know, it's, it's. I know, I know that I need to get out certain information, but I'm not going to be stuck to a script where if I break a line, I'm off script and I can't get back. Younger lawyers tend to want to read more and want to. But you, you, this is, this is a point at which I want the jury to be paying attention to me. So I'm paying attention to them as I'm talking to them. I'm wanting to see who's paying attention to me, who's not. At that point, I'm really sort of engaging everybody in a conversation. And as a defense lawyer, one of my stock lines is at the very end I say, so this is the last time I get to talk to you. The state got to go first, they get to go next. What I want you to do is I want you to think about everything that I just said and I want my voice to be in the back of your head as they're talking to you, I want you to be saying, how would Tim respond to that? And then I want you to go back in the jury room and I want you to talk about that and find my client not guilty. So I try to seed myself into state's rebuttal with that, and then I sit down because, you know, I need to have advocates and good prosecutors are going to slaughter my story. They're going to slaughter the voids in my story. If there are voids, they're going to highlight those. They're going to really shoot. They're going to put importance in the things that they think are important. And the jurors may, oh, that's tit tat. Oh, really good. But I want them to be thinking, oh, how would, how would he respond to that? Well, he would probably say, that's not critical here. Don't get distracted by that.

[B]

You know, if you're like us, you're trying to save money right now. One major personal finance hack we've discovered is investing in clothing staples that hold up over time and never go out of fashion. That is why we love our sponsor, Quints.

[A]

If you're in need of everyday essentials, go to quints murder sheet listeners get a great deal at quint.com msheet check out their organic cotton sweaters, polos, lighter jackets for the changing weather. You know you're getting the best deal because they cut out the middlemen and work directly with ethical quality factories and artisans. So you're missing the markup.

[B]

We adore our Quint items. I've also found that all of my Quint's clothes hold up super well, remarkably well. I've even had an accidental stress test there. Like, seriously, guys, a detergent bottle exploded in my laundry room, dripped a lot of detergent onto one of my Quint's Mongolian cashmere sweaters. So it took me a minute to hand was all of the suds out, and I was frankly so worried. But when it dried, it was as good as new, no damage. It was like brand new once again. So that gave me a lot of confidence. I wear my Quinn sweaters all the time because I feel comfortable knowing that they're going to last me a long time and feel super good.

[A]

I wear my sweaters, too. I was never really a sweater guy, but Quince has changed that. I wear my quince sweaters all the time because I like the way they feel. Refresh your wardrobe with quince. Go to quince.com msheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N c e.com msheet free shipping and 365 day returns. Wynts.com msheet obviously a closing is very important. Would you say that a great closing can save a weak case or a weak closing could damage a great case?

[C]

Absolutely. One I value the jury system, I really do. I believe, I believe in the purpose of a jury, but one of my main sort of fears of a jury is that they can be swayed by theatrics, performance, character. And I believe a strong presentation can overcome weak evidence and that's dangerous if that's coming from the state. I believe a weak performance can under underwhelm a defense. You know, passion from a defense lawyer can carry a lot of weight to shining light into a circumstance that may cause doubt to exist or show where doubt exists and highlight that. So I absolutely believe that a good closing argument can make up for the, the deficit in weak cases. One of my first mentors, Jim McKinley at the Indiana Federal Community Defenders, he said there's, there's facts and there's the law and if you don't have the facts or you have the law, blame the police. You know, one day he and I were walking into the federal courthouse and he had his catalog case which for, for people who are non lawyers may not know what that is, but there's these, they're rectangular, thick briefcases that you would have many different files in at a time. Paper files. They were pretty, pretty common for trial lawyers to have pre iPads and, and surface pros. Well, we walked into the federal courthouse and you had to go through a scanner and so I put my notepad on there and he put his, his catalog case on the, on the conveyor belt. It goes through security. They wand us. And he's having a conversation with court security and they said, well Mr. McKinley, how's it going to go today? He goes well sometimes you have the facts and sometimes you have the law. And then he thumped a hollow catalog case and he goes, I don't have either. And so we're walking down the hallway and he goes so what does that mean? And I go we got to blame the cops. That was an aside, but it made me think fondly of him. He passed a few years ago. Jim McKinley, great man.

[B]

One thing you mentioned earlier was how you're not supposed to bring up things about penalty in a closing. Are there other things that you should, are not allowed to bring up or maybe should not bring up.

[C]

Of course. So I started with talking about close of the evidence. Arguing facts not in evidence is an objection that can be made that leads to an admonishment from the judge that they are not. That the juror is not allowed to consider things the attorney has said that aren't in evidence. And it can be a problem. You can actually get a mistrial if it breaks one of the like rules of evidence. So how could it break one of the rules of evidence? Well, if you are the state and you highlight a prior bad act from the defendant who that isn't in evidence, that's an impermit. You're not allowed to talk about somebody's prior bad acts to show action and conformity with that. Now. So if you're trying somebody for theft and they have a prior battery, okay, you can't talk about their prior battery now because batterers are bad people and bad people might steal stuff. So he might be guilty of stealing because he's a batterer. Right. So we, we exclude that we rules of evidence want us to be analyzing the facts of this case with the law of this case to see if this person did it. And unless there's a specific cutout reason of bringing up that prior bad act, such as it's a, it shows a, a knowledge or it's a, there's a modus operandi, a signature to it that makes it relevant that gets X'd out. So if a prosecutor is flailing and, and, and said, well, you know, we can't let a batterer get away with theft in this town, you know, that's a, that could be a mistrial. How could the defense do it? Well, you know, there's rape shield laws. So a man who's charged or this assume a man charged with rape and we are not allowed to bring in the promiscuity of the victim under a specific rule of evidence, you know, it's this specific act. It's not about that specific. Well, if the defense lawyer gets up and says we can't, you can't convict this man for what he did to the, you know, I mean, you know, that, that horrible stuff. But that would be a way that, that could, that could happen. Impermissible also, you know, one of a common misstep that happens that doesn't necessarily lead to a mistrial and it, it happens to good lawyers is that they say a fact in closing that isn't in evidence. And part of that's because they, the lawyers know the case better than anybody and often get confused as to what actually came into evidence versus what they think should have come into evidence. They didn't ask a question that they should have asked, but they think that's in. And so they make that statement. Well, that'll raise. I'm going to object. That's a fact. That's not in evidence. And that's where a judge has to be paying very close attention because a judge is going to make a value judgment and say, oh, I remember that. That actually is in evidence. Go ahead and you can continue or no, that definitely isn't in evidence. And ladies and gentlemen, the jury. I'm going to ask to pay no attention to that. And you assume that is not true because it's not in evidence. So they give an admonishment.

[A]

Yeah, a few minutes ago you were talking about. One line you use is that this is the last time I'll be talking with you. And so I'm curious, what's it like emotionally to stand up and know this is the last time I'm going to talk to the jury? I've been working on this case for a long time. When I sit down, it's all out of my hands. I just have to wait. What is that like?

[C]

Horrible. I think probably different lawyers feel different ways about it. For me, that is the point at which it's outside of my control. I can't lose grip because I still have to listen to the rebuttal and I have to be prepared to object if there's an infusion of something that's wrong. I can tell you on one hand how many times I've objected in a closing at all. It's very, very rare. But we're not just having that trial. We're also preparing the documents for appeal should the client lose. Lawyers, specifically defense lawyers, know that anything we're doing in court, we're talking to two audiences. We're talking to the trial level audience and the court of appeals audience. So when I'm doing my closing, there's a sense of urgency, a sense of conviction to try to succeed in educating the jury that what they just heard wasn't enough. Or if you're the state, what they just heard was enough. But then there's a point where you are done speaking and you have to sit down. And for me, that's where there's an endorphin dump that also is like, it's now outside of my control. And that's very hard for me as a person to. To feel that, because up until that point I have some control. I have the ability to object. I have the ability to, to handle my closing outline and change it up to fit something. But once I say thank you and I sit and I sit down, I'm done. And I usually, I usually have a, a feeling of like, physiologically I feel like this redness happen in the back of my neck where it's, it's. My body's just kind of dumping and my temperature comes up because I'm, I'm. It's now outside of my control and I. There's a little bit of thinking going on, but there's a lot of attention going on. But once the state sits down and the judge starts to give those final instructions, there's just a whole lot of this is, here we go. Was it enough? You start second guessing everything you did, you start wondering whether you said the thing you thought you should say. And it's, it's. For me, there's a bookend of intensity of a trial. There's the jury selection opening, which is chaotic and crazy and weird and not your normal garden variety day in court for a trial lawyer. And then there's the case in chief in the defense case, which is normal garden variety. Asking questions, objecting, getting documents in, preventing documents from coming in that we do every day in different hearings. So that's within the routine practice. And then you get to closing arguments and then jury selection, which doesn't happen every day. And so there's nerves around that too.

[B]

Do you think back on your own career and do any closing statements come to mind as particularly challenging or interesting in some way or memorable for you?

[C]

Yeah, I've watched really good closings with, with both adversaries on both sides of the, on both sides of the case. And then, you know, I've, I've put a lot of effort into many closings. One of my, one of my personal favorite closing arguments that I did, it was a circumstantial case. So as, as your audience is probably aware, you can prove somebody's guilt by either direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. But if there's circumstantial evidence, it has to. The weight of the evidence has to overcome every reasonable alternative hypothesis. And so I was trying, as I was prosecutor, I was trying a man, for being a drug dealer, very large amount of methamphetamine, something like 220 pounds or 222 pounds of marijuana, which ends up being boxloads, boxes and boxes of marijuana. And so the methamphetamine was found at a location not at the defendant's house. And the defense lawyer did a fantastic job in his closing of building some doubt or pointing to doubt that we had the evidence to show that he was the dealer of the methamphetamine. Dealing marijuana back in that time frame was like a C felony. And dealing methamphetamine was a level. It was an A felony, what would now be a level one felony. And so we were going after the methamphetamine because there's a large quantity of that. And so my dad was a carpenter and he's a fine woodworker. And my closing argument went something like this is if you drove up to my parents house, you would pull into the driveway and a man would greet you on the front porch and he would have overalls on with some sawdust and dirty boots and he's a kind man. So he would invite you inside the house and you'd walk inside the door of the house and you would see beautiful furniture and wonderfully handcrafted cabinets and crown molding in the house and Victorian era furniture and decorations that were just really superb. And dad might take you down to the basement and show you blueprints for a lot of that furniture. And then he might walk you out into the garage, his shop, and show you his tools, his stacks of wood, his lumber, his sanders and all of these things. He might even show you partially made items. And I looked at the jury and I said, you wouldn't need his DNA on any of those things. You wouldn't need his fingerprints on any of those things to know that he's a master carpenter. You would be able to use your common sense, you'd be able to see the tools of his trade, you'd be able to see the product of his trade to know he's a master carpenter. And in this case, we have the tools of the trade. What are they? Well, they're baggies, their scales, their storage units. You know, we have the product of his trade. We have, you know, divvied up bags of marijuana and we have a source and a supply the lumber of this methamphetamine over here. And so I told this story that was very, the jury ultimately said was really very convincing to building the, you know, the defense lawyer is just like, where are the fingerprints, where's the DNA? Where, you know, things that juries want and things that I often talk about as a defense lawyer. But you know, one of the things that the jury instructions tell a jury is you're not, you don't have to abandon your common sense at the door. You get to use your common sense. And I was able to argue by way of using their common sense about my dad, that they could use their common sense about this defendant, that he was, in fact, the drug dealer also. Ultimately, in that case, one of the things we found out was that the jury was very perceptive. And they looked through one of the pictures. There was a picture in the closet of the man in the house, and on the floor of the closet, there was a Christmas package that was opened that had wrapping paper. The methamphetamine that was found in January, I think, was found in a storage unit in a shoebox that was wrapped in Christmas paper. And the jurors drew the nexus, so they saw that. It's great.

[B]

Do you often hear from jurors that the closing arguments of both sides sort of played an impact in their ultimate decisions?

[C]

Yes. To that end, that's one of the things I hope for as a defense lawyer, because the jurors are instructed at the front end of the case that they must keep an open mind and withhold formulating their opinion until all the evidence has been presented. So I loathe hearing a juror say, oh, we knew he was guilty really early, or, you know, you want to hear? Yeah, we kept our mind open. And then when you guys, you know, put it together for us, that's how we knew.

[A]

What are some of the mistakes attorneys might make when they deliver a closing argument?

[C]

Regurgitating. And what do I mean by that? So the jury will have sat through two hours, two months worth of testimony, evidence. And there is a. The state has the job of showing that there's elements of the crime that have to be met, and there's evidence that meets those. So there is some need to call back evidence to certain facts that need to be presented. But there's a. There's a. Prosecutors often make the mistake that they want to press all the evidence back in. Let's get all this evidence back in again. And you can lose jurors real fast because they're, like, either bored or they've already heard it, they've already discredited it or devalued it. And so now you're bringing it in front of them again. You can lose them. It's better to be sparing. Just remind them of who.

[B]

Who.

[C]

The evidence. His evidence told you that, you know, you don't have to go through everything. Defense the same way is you. You can over highlight and stick too hard on a point. That's a loser point or a weak point and miss, you know, you regurgitate so you can lose your jurors in it. So I think one of the things that can, you have to be willing to gauge what are the strengths, what are the weaknesses, what is the, what is the least amount of rehashing that I can do to satisfy the questions that they may have. And if I can't satisfy, if I'm the defense, I don't want to satisfy the questions they have. I want to inflect the questions that they have. And so, you know, that's where calling back to questions that came up or statements that were made in Voir is important. Throughout the trial, jurors may be asking questions. In Indiana, we allow jurors to ask questions, questions of witnesses. The judge and the lawyers get to filter those. But if, if they're good, if they're good for the state, state should be talking about those. One of you asked a really good question. If they're good for the defense, and it's, and it's me, you can guarantee I'm going to be shining that, that juror up about that question. That was a great question and that it was so great, the judge let it be asked. And it's a doubt question and it's reasonable. And here's why it's reasonable. And yeah.

[B]

So one question I have is, when you're done with your closing, do you ever look over the jury? Are you ever able to, like, read their faces or body language? Is that ever something that kind of can give you hope or shatter your hopes?

[C]

After closing, I typically am not going to be spending a whole lot of time looking at them because they're still now, I mean, I'm a defense lawyer, so there's still more action going. They're probably still focused on the state. And I don't want to misread anything. I think a difficult thing that I try to get myself away from is watching the jurors during the final instruction reading or when they come back after deliberation. And how do they walk in the room? Do they look at me? Do they look at my client? Do they look at the state? I'm almost never right about reading them on what they're going to be. So I don't put a lot of stock into it. But there's this. My natural desire is to want to say, did you like me? Did you like me? Did you like me? And. And then see if they did anything.

[B]

We didn't ask you about that. You wanted to mention or you think it's important for folks to understand closing arguments.

[C]

You know, I think the, the, when you're watching or listening to closing arguments, you have to remember that they are arguments, they're not evidence. And it's best that you don't just jump into a case at the closing and try to make your decision on whether or not the jury's result matches how well closing arguments went. Because I mean, the evidence there, a jury is often taking the credibility of a witness or the demeanor of a witness on the stand as much as they're taking the argument of the lawyer afterward. And that is evidence. The lawyer's argument is not. And if I've, I've seen juries, you know, convict where after closing argument you think there's no way they're going to convict. I've seen them acquit.

[A]

Where.

[C]

For the, for, you know, you know, for an example of a case that I had where, you know, a juror didn't tell the truth in voir about her contact with law enforcement, the argument was a, I mean, slam dunk conviction, but something that she didn't weigh as credibility. So closing arguments are, are fun for me. They're, they're exciting. They are a invigorating part of a trial because those who are paying attention have, it's the summation, it's the, it's word of brass tax. It's almost time for the, the decision to be happening. But you can't just start there as far as, as a layperson or a witness to a trial, you could listen to closing arguments and say, oh, I know who's going to win. You really don't.

[B]

Well, thank you so much, Tim. We really appreciate this. Thanks so much to Tim for his great insights. We always really appreciate it.

[A]

Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email [e-mail] if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[B]

If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com/murder sheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[A]

Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the [e-mail] if you're looking to talk with.

[B]

Other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.