This rule is designed to control the order of closing argument. It reflects the Advisory Committee's view that it is desirable to have a uniform federal practice. The rule is drafted in the view that fair and effective administration of justice is best served if the defendant knows the arguments actually made by the prosecution in behalf of conviction before the defendant is faced with the decision whether to reply and what to reply.
Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, House Report No. 94–247; 1975 Amendment
A. Amendments Proposed by the Supreme Court, Rule 29.1 is a new rule that was added to regulate closing arguments. It prescribes that the government shall make its closing argument and then the defendant shall make his. After the defendant has argued, the government is entitled to reply in rebuttal.
B. Committee Action. The Committee endorses and adopts this proposed rule in its entirety. The Committee believes that as the Advisory Committee Note has stated, fair and effective administration of justice is best served if the defendant knows the arguments actually made by the prosecution in behalf of conviction before the defendant is faced with the decision whether to reply and what to reply. Rule 29.1 does not specifically address itself to what happens if the prosecution waives its initial closing argument. The Committee is of the view that the prosecutor, when he waives his initial closing argument, also waives his rebuttal. [See the remarks of Senior United States Circuit Judge J. Edward Lumbard in Hearings II, at 207.]
Committee Notes on Rules—2002 Amendment
The language of Rule 29.1 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Criminal Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only.
Effective Date
This rule effective Dec. 1, 1975, see section 2 of Pub. L. 94–64, set out as a note under rule 4 of these rules.
Amendments Proposed by the Supreme Court, Rule 29.1 is a new rule that was added to regulate closing arguments. It prescribes that the government shall make its closing argument and then the defendant shall make his. After the defendant has argued, the government is entitled to reply in rebuttal
rebuttal
Rebuttal is evidence or arguments introduced to counter, disprove, or contradict the opposing party's evidence or argument, either at trial or in a reply brief.
A “Rule 29 Motion,” based on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, is typically made twice during a federal trial – first, at the close of the Government's case, and again at the close of the entire case. These motions allow the judge to dismiss the case as a matter of law.
The plaintiff, having the burden of proof, usually has the right to give her closing argument first, followed by the defendant's closing argument. In many jurisdictions, the plaintiff may use all of the allotted time, or the plaintiff may reserve time (e.g., ten minutes) to use after the defendant's closing argument.
It is not permissible argument for counsel to read, or otherwise state, the facts of another case, together with the decision therein, as premises leading to the conclusion that the jury should return a verdict favorable to his client in the case on trial.
At this point, parties are free to use hypothetical analogies to make their points; to comment on the credibility of the witnesses, to discuss how they believe the various pieces of the puzzle fit into a compelling whole, and to advocate why jurors should decide the case in their favor.
The law states that 29 is the magic number of times a consumer must be exposed to a product before becoming a buyer. The law of 29, an unwritten rule, is the basis for drip marketing—an approach that necessitates communicating with consumers steadily through a constant stream of marketing material.
Rule 29 permits the parties by stipulation to modify any of the procedures provided by the discovery rules. Any stipulation varying the discovery procedures may be superseded by court order.
You must act quickly since objections to closing arguments must be timely. Courts hold that an objection to improper argument must be made before the judge submits the case to the jury to deliberate—i.e., during argument or immediately following. Otherwise, the objection is waived.
The basic components are: a dynamic beginning; a compelling and accurate factual story consistent with your case theme and theory; an application of the facts to the law; a strong ending that reinforces your case theme/theory; and a clear “ask” (tell the jurors what you want them to do).
In the courtroom, a Golden Rule argument is one which asks the jurors to “place themselves in the victim's [or plaintiff's] shoes.” 5 Such an argument is prohibited because it “tends to completely destroy all sense of impartiality of the jurors, and its effect is to arouse passion and prejudice.” 6 Other examples of ...
Prosecutors may not argue facts that are not in evidence, express personal opinions or beliefs, give incorrect or misleading statements of law, or argue for a conviction on improper grounds such as general deterrence or racial bias.
Usually, the prosecution first makes a closing argument, then the defense attorney. The prosecutor, who has the burden of proof, frequently gets the chance to respond to the defense's final argument.
The phrase "Voir Dire" literally means, "to speak the truth." In court, it refers to a process of determining whether a juror can serve fairly and impartially in a given case by asking the juror various questions.
Amendments Proposed by the Supreme Court, Rule 29.1 is a new rule that was added to regulate closing arguments. It prescribes that the government shall make its closing argument and then the defendant shall make his. After the defendant has argued, the government is entitled to reply in rebuttal.
The court on motion of a defendant or on its own motion, after the evidence on either side is closed, shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment, information, or complaint, if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses.
(a) Within thirty days after the entry of the judgment and prior to the filing of the transcript of the record in the appellate court, the court may of its own initiative or on motion of a defendant arrest or set aside a judgment upon either of the following grounds: (1) that the facts stated in the indictment or ...
(1) A defendant may move for a judgment of acquittal, or renew the motion, within 14 days after the jury is discharged or within such further time as the court orders during that 14-day period. (2) If the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the court may set aside the verdict and enter an acquittal.
The defense of necessity may apply when an individual commits a criminal act during an emergency situation in order to prevent a greater harm from happening. In such circ*mstances, our legal system typically excuses the individual's criminal act because it was justified, or finds that no criminal act has occurred.
Introduction: My name is Nathanael Baumbach, I am a fantastic, nice, victorious, brave, healthy, cute, glorious person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.
We notice you're using an ad blocker
Without advertising income, we can't keep making this site awesome for you.
