A closing argument is the moment to tie the evidence together into a persuasive whole, but it is also one of the most rule-bound parts of a trial. Counsel may argue hard, yet several specific moves are off-limits, and crossing those lines can taint a verdict. Preparing a closing means building a powerful argument that stays strictly inside the boundaries, and being ready to police the other side’s.
What a closing may do
The legitimate scope is broad but defined: counsel may argue the evidence that was admitted and the reasonable inferences that flow from it. A good closing organizes that evidence into a coherent story, connects it to the elements at issue, and tells the panel why it points to the conclusion counsel urges. Persuasion built on the record is exactly what the closing is for.
What a closing may not do
The boundaries are where preparation must be most careful, because courts have repeatedly flagged recurring improper arguments. Among the clearest prohibitions:
- No vouching. Counsel may not give a personal opinion about guilt or about a witness’s truthfulness, telling the panel “this witness is telling the truth” is improper.
- No facts outside the record. Arguing facts not in evidence is misconduct; the argument must stay within what was actually presented.
- No comment on the accused’s silence. Counsel may not improperly argue that the accused should be penalized for exercising the right to remain silent or the right to trial.
- No inflaming the panel. Appeals designed to provoke passion or prejudice rather than reasoned judgment are out of bounds.
Knowing this list cold lets counsel build right up to the line without crossing it.
Preparation, and policing the other side
Preparation therefore runs in two directions. First, counsel drafts an argument that is forceful but clean, every point anchored in admitted evidence and fair inference, with no vouching, outside facts, comment on silence, or inflammatory appeal. Second, counsel prepares to object when opposing argument strays across these lines, because an improper argument left unchallenged can do real damage.
When the prosecution vouches for a witness in closing, the attorney objects, because counsel may argue the evidence and its inferences but may not offer a personal opinion that a witness is telling the truth.
The essential takeaway is that an effective closing is disciplined persuasion. It draws all its force from the admitted evidence and reasonable inferences, scrupulously avoids vouching, facts outside the record, comment on the accused’s silence, and inflammatory appeals, and is paired with the vigilance to challenge an opponent who does not show the same restraint.
Frequently Asked Questions
What can counsel argue in a closing?
The evidence that was admitted at trial and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from it, organized into a persuasive argument tied to the elements at issue.
What makes a closing argument improper?
Common examples include vouching with a personal opinion on guilt or a witness’s truthfulness, arguing facts not in evidence, commenting on the accused’s exercise of the right to remain silent, and inflammatory appeals to passion or prejudice.
What should counsel do about an opponent’s improper argument?
Be prepared to object in a timely way, because improper argument left unchallenged can prejudice the panel and harm the case.
This article is general information about closing arguments in courts-martial. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Application is fact-specific and the law can change. Anyone facing a court-martial should consult qualified defense counsel.
Sources