Opening Statement
Efficient Openings and how they synergize with the rest of the Case
It's almost easier to start, when discussing the Opening Statement, by stating what it isn't. So, here goes:
Keep that in mind first and foremost. The Opening is not a time to brandish legal ammunition, to convince the jury or the judge of your veracity, nor to provide any probative material. How could you, when your case hasn't even started yet? The Opening serves one simple purpose, and, if done well, can elevate a mock trial performance from decent to unforgettable.
What do you narrate? Two things:
THE THEORY OF THE CASE
See, I told you that was important. The first part of any successful opening is to convey the Theory of the Case. Tell it like a story, starting from the victim or the defendant's perspective, chronologically. If I were the Crown in a robbery case, I might plan an Opening as follows:
The victim, their situation, their family, their lives.
The night of the robbery: What happened? What did they see / hear / recognize?
The police investigation: What did they discover? What evidence did they find linking the defendant to the crime?
The theme: What is the case about?
The final step may be a bit alien, so allow me to explain deeper. Every case has a theme, be it 'greed', 'negligence', or 'unforeseeability'. There exists thematic motives behind every illegal action, and identifying the theme, and sticking to it as a part of the theory of the case, will allow the jury to pick it up through repetition.
Remember, in the Opening, you're not trying to win with facts; those aren't out yet. You're trying to win in framing. Every juror, no matter how seemingly impartial, will view evidence in the context of their personal framing of the case. If your theme is stronger, they will see everything in a favourable context. For example, if the case is about a construction company who built affordable housing on polluted land, there are two antithetical themes for the two sides:
GREED
The construction company, knowing the project will be sold to the most destitute families, figured they would not be able to recuperate costs, and cut corners to make more money.
Their greed caused the housing complex to be built. In their immoral pursuit of profit, they sold out their tenants by failing to clear the very foundation of their lives; their homes. Their greed manifested in the dangerous residences, and caused substantial harm to the vulnerable: the customers who relied on them.
Whether the company actually did do 'their best to ensure safety', or the residents did suffer 'substantial harm' is not the province of the Opening. That comes in the rigorous Direct and Cross examinations, to be presented and argued. But the point of the Opening is to set up the audience to hear these disputes, and inplant a favourable angle, from which the audience will interpret the evidence shown.
Anything can be used to prove anything, it just depends on the perspective of the audience. A good opening ensures the audience will be on your perspective.
THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL
Interwoven into narrating the Theory of the Case, which is a biased representation of how the crime occured, should be narration of the future. A good Opening provides a roadmap to the rest of the trial. Give a brief introduction to each witness, who they are, how they're relevant, and what they'll say.
This makes sure the jury knows what your team's play will be for the trial, and gears them up to listen. Ideally, after the Opening, everyone should have a clear idea of what each witness will offer, and be ready to use their testimony to affirm your theory. Introducing the roster this way ensures that there is no confusion on what each witness is supposed to say, and which elements of the charges are contested. It sets up the clash between the teams in a concise way: now all you need do is to win them.
That's the Opening. If you're looking for flashy power-attorneys, harsh accusations, and on-the-spot argumentation, this isn't for you. The Opening is supposed to be slower, more emotional, to introduce these characters not as tools to prove semantics, but real people, who deserve the delicacy of deliberation. I have no doubt you'll be up for it, once you practice a few times in the mirror.
Last updated