OBJECTIONS OPENING & CLOSING

The purpose of an opening statement is to inform the jury of what the case is about, what kinds of evidence are going to be presented and what each side’s witnesses will be testifying about. Arguing about the case is prohibited in an opening statement. Because of this rule, there are a few scenarios in which an attorney might need to object during an opening statement. Listed below are the times in which it is appropriate to object during an opening statement.

Statements that are Unsupported by Evidence: These kinds of statements are very rarely a problem in court. If an attorney states during his/her opening statement that a certain witness will testify or certain pieces of evidence will be admitted, but that witness is not called or that evidence is not admitted, the objection to this is generally overruled. It is when an attorney intentionally says something false during the statement that the objection is appropriate.
Statements that are Argumentative: This is very self-explanatory. As stated before, attorneys are prohibited from arguing the case in their opening statements. It is appropriate to object when an attorney begins to do this.
Statements that Consist of Improper Personal Beliefs: Attorneys are prohibited from expressing their personal beliefs during an opening statement. If an attorney says something that revolves around his/her personal beliefs, an objection is appropriate.
Statements that Misstate the Law: If an attorney makes a statement about a law that is incorrect during his/her opening statement, an objection is appropriate. Attorneys are not allowed to misstate the law at any time during the trial.
Statements that Improperly Anticipate Objections: While it is permitted for an attorney to anticipate a defense, it can be prohibited at times. When an attorney does this and it is prohibited, an objection is appropriate.
Statements that Refer to Inadmissible Evidence: Attorneys are prohibited from discussing inadmissible evidence in their opening statements, as an opening statement is only supposed to cover things that can be proven. When this happens, an objection is appropriate.

The purpose of a closing argument is su mmarization what the prosecution/defense (depends on what side you’re representing) has proven and how they have proven it. The prosecution argues how they have met the burden of proof and the defense argues how they have proven that their client did not commit a crime/is not liable for what they are accused of (depends on whether it is a civil or criminal case). There are, at times, scenarios in which objections are allowed during a closing argument. They are listed and described below.

Golden Rule Arguments: Golden rule arguments are when an attorney tells the jury to put themselves in the shoes of one of the parties. This is prohibited in a closing argument because it allows jurors to use bias and personal interest, rather than evidence, to decide how to vote on a case. When this takes place, an objection is appropriate.
Attacks on the Opposing Party: Although arguing the case is allowed in a closing argument, attacks on an opposing attorney are prohibited. When this takes place, an objection is appropriate.
Personal Opinions and Beliefs: Attorneys are prohibited from interjecting their personal beliefs or opinions into their closing arguments, as they are in their opening statements. When this takes place, an objection is appropriate.
Misstating the Law: Attorneys are prohibited from making false statements about the law in their closing arguments, as they are in their opening statements. When this takes place, an objection is appropriate.
Statements Regarding the Credibility of Witnesses: While an attorney is allowed to question the credibility of a witness on legitimate grounds, they are not allowed to use “inflammatory language” to do so. When this takes place, an objection is appropriate.
Per Diem Arguments: A per diem argument is “A formula argument [in which] time units of life [are] multiplied by [a] price of pain per unit.” When an attorney makes these arguments during their closing argument, an objection is appropriate.
References to Insurance Coverage: Attorneys are prohibited from using a person’s lack of insurance coverage as a means of creating sympathy for that person. When this takes place, an objection is appropriate.