Abstract
Prior to trial by jury, there was trial by battle. That ancient antecedent to the jury system has left its mark. The metaphor of battle is still employed to convey the intensity of contemporary litigation. Using the metaphor to structure a theory of jury advocacy, however, may be inappropriate. If attorneys view trial practice as battle, then they may be tempted to rely on the tactics of combat: ambush, deception and surprise. The battle metaphor may lure trial lawyers into strategies such as (1) reserving opening statements; (2) making short noncommittal opening statements that hide one's theory of the case; (3) saving witnesses and evidence for rebuttal that could be part of the case-in-chief; and (4) saving facts for closing arguments that could be stated in opening statement and/or mentioning such facts only at a rebuttal portion of closing.
Recommended Citation
Leigh, Lawrence J.
(1984)
"A Theory of Jury Trial Advocacy,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1984:
No.
4, Article 3.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1984/iss4/3