In trial advocacy, what are the main purposes of an opening statement and a closing argument?

• A. Opening outlines the evidence to be presented; closing recounts the evidence.
• B. Opening ensures the judge approves the theory; closing appeals to emotions.
• C. Opening outlines case theory and predicts evidence; closing argues why the facts support a verdict in your favor.
• D. Opening critiques opposing counsel; closing introduces new facts.

Answer: (C)

Opening statements set the stage by presenting your theory of the case and outlining the evidence you plan to prove. They’re a roadmap, not the evidence itself, designed to help the jury understand the framework you'll use and what witnesses and documents they should expect. Closing arguments come after the evidence has been heard and are meant to weave together the proven facts, show how they fit your theory, and argue why those facts, together with the law, support a verdict in your favor. They emphasize the strongest inferences, highlight credibility, and respond to the other side’s arguments without introducing new facts. The best choice captures this by stating that the opening outlines the case theory and predicts the evidence, while the closing argues why the proven facts support a verdict in your favor. The other options misstate the roles: openings aren’t simply lists of evidence, closings aren’t just recounting evidence or relying on emotion, and openings don’t critique opposing counsel or introduce new facts.