California Prosecutor’s Closing Argument
Once both the defense lawyer and the prosecutor have presented their cases in a California DUI / DWI trial, each attorney gives closing arguments. Closing arguments are both sides’ final opportunity to persuade the jury to accept their arguments. A knowledgeable drunk driving defense attorney from The Kavinoky Law Firm will use closing arguments to highlight the fact that the prosecutor hasn’t proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor usually uses his or her closing argument to summarize evidence that he or she believes points to the driver’s guilt.
The prosecutor has the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt, so he or she is allowed to go first in closing arguments. Once the defense attorney completes closing arguments, the prosecutor is given the last word in what is called rebuttal.
The prosecutor is charged with the burden of proving every single element of a driving under the influence case beyond a reasonable doubt. Smart prosecutors try to minimize this burden to the jury, or even imply that the defendant must prove his or her innocence. Although jurors are specifically instructed that this is untrue, they sometimes forget this instruction during the prosecutor’s smooth closing argument. This is why it’s critical for the defense lawyer to remind jurors during closing arguments who has the burden of proof.
During closing arguments, the prosecutor usually reviews his or her entire case, focusing on items that indicate the defendant’s guilt. The prosecutor might show jurors the driver’s booking photo and describe the physical signs of intoxication. The prosecutor will then review the testimony of each witness. Finally, the prosecutor will ask the jury to deliver a guilty verdict.
Once the prosecutor has finished delivering his or her closing arguments, the defense lawyer gives the closing argument for the defense. A skilled California criminal defense attorney from The Kavinoky Law Firm will deliver an effective closing argument designed to remind the jury that the prosecutor hasn’t met the burden of proof in the drunk driving case.
