“Should You Respond to EVERY Argument?”

[bpagrawal]

"Should You Respond to EVERY Argument?"

During closing arguments, your opponent may tell the jurors dozens of reasons why they should rule against you.  If you're like most trial lawyers, you'll want to address each and every one of those arguments during your opportunity for rebuttal.  But before you do, here's a quick word of advice:
Don't.
Responding to every argument is a knee-jerk response that many of us fall trap to.  You do it because you're afraid that if you don't counter every point your opponent makes, you'll give the jurors justification to rule against your client and you'll set yourself up for a malpractice complaint.  But in practice, not only is there no need to counter every argument, it can actually be detrimental to your case.
Too many attorneys argue from their heels.  They backpeddle away from the strengths of their cases and respond to their opponent's case from a defensive posture.  No one ever looks their strongest when they're on the defensive, yet in courtrooms around the country, that'sexactly how most attorneys are presenting their closing arguments.  For example, when I critique attorneys during their closing arguments, I regularly see this scenario: The plaintiff attorney lists 27 reasons why the defendant is liable.  While he's arguing, the defense attorney dutifully writes down every single one of those 27 arguments, and then spends the first 30 minutes of his closing argument responding to each and every point.  By the time he's done responding to the plaintiff's arguments, the jurors have lost any interest in listening to the rest of his closing argument, and they ignore the strongest arguments in his case.
So why do we do it?
http://www.lawweb.in/2013/09/should-you-respond-to-every-argument.html