Many trial advocacy books (although not mine) include some version of the admonition that "the opening statement is the most important part of the trial," or that "most jurors make up their minds after the opening statements." The usual source for the claim is the 1966 Kalven-Zeisel jury study, which does not actually say that.
There is no doubt, however, that opening statements can be crucial, as was perhaps uniquely demonstrated in a recent criminal case in San Francisco, in which the federal prosecutors decided to drop the case on the basis of the defense opening. As reported on Law.Com:
According to sources with knowledge of how things unfolded, the decision to dismiss drug trafficking charges was set in motion by the powerful opening statement delivered June 13 by FedEx defense lawyer Cristina Arguedas of the Berkeley, California criminal defense boutique Arguedas, Cassman & Headley.
You can read the fascinating story of the "killer opening" here.
[UPDATE]
Ungated AP story here.
SF Recorder story here.
WRCB story here.
Bloomberg story here.
Is there an ungated version of the "killer opening" story?
See updates above.
Are one or more attorneys from the DOJ or DEA getting fired for this? Or does working as a government attorney mean never having to say you're sorry?
PaulB
SOrt of like tenure, no?
Except, with tenure as a law prof, one can do a part time job, poorly, with full time pay and with impunity.