MovieChat Forums > The Accused (1988) Discussion > closing statements

closing statements

posted 9 years ago by denham
3 replies | jump to latest

It is notable that in the film the defense gives its closing statement first and the prosecution follows, in effect having the last word; this is the opposite of normal procedure. It is also notable, at least in my view, that the prosecution closing statement is very weak, consisting of little more than rhetoric. Had the defense had the last word, as is customary, it could easily have been exposed as such by a competent attorney and very possibly a different verdict reached.

As a separate point, the identification of the defendants with those inciting rape was crucial but never explicitly demonstrated. Perhaps the idea was that it might be inferred from the flashback sequence. However, it would have been better to add a few lines making it clear that the jury was hearing evidence in sufficient detail from Ken Joyce on this particular matter. Unless the jury was satisfied on this point there could hardly be a conviction, of course.

I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken.

[–] scrabbler1 9 years ago

I don't know if it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction here in the US, but from what I've seen and heard, the prosecution always gets to open first and close last. This is mainly because the burden of proof ("beyond a reasonable doubt") is so high. In some criminal cases, the prosecution gets to make a closing statement first, then follow the defense's closing statement with a second "rebuttal" closing statement.

In civil cases, however, the plaintiff gets to open first and close first. The burden of proof in a civil case is much lighter, a "preponderance of evidence."

You didn't mention this, but in the original, uncut movie (i.e. not the TV version), there was a cross-examination of Kenneth Joyce. I have seen the uncut version only once or twice, in the theater and perhaps on video. It was pretty vivid but I don't recall if he made any additional identification of the defendants.

[–] denham 9 years ago

I'm grateful for that information; what I'm accustomed to is the defense closing last, as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_criminal_procedure#Presentation_of_evidence, but when I got round to checking procedure in the state of Washington (where the film events are supposed to take place) I found it's as you remarked, with the prosecution being able to have the last say by way of rebuttal. Perhaps we are to take it that the prosecution speech we hear is intended to be such a rebuttal, in which case we never heard the prosecution closing statement which would have had to precede that of the defense. Whichever the sequence, it would be surprising in my view if in such a case as this, purely on the basis of the evidence and argument we heard given in court, the defendants were to be convicted.

I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken.

[–] movies789 8 years ago

You're mistaken, denham. The link you gave pertains to the opening statement, not the closing statement. In federal criminal trials (which is what your link relates to), the prosecutor gives a closing statement, then the defense gives its closing statement, then the prosecutor gives a rebuttal to what the defense said - strictly limited to response to the points made in the defense closing, not new points.

Of course, the trial in the movie was local jurisdiction, not federal, so that might be approached differently. I don't know.