Virtually every movie or television show involving a trial focuses on the arguments that the lawyers get to make to the jury. The opening statement is made at the beginning of the case to tell the jury what evidence each lawyer intends to present to them and what that evidence will show. It is more of a chronological summary of what happened to the patient and why they are here to decide his case. Generally, the judge will limit the lawyers from making arguments about their case and the evidence. Smart lawyers find ways to argue the evidence in the opening statement within the bounds of acceptability of the court.
Closing arguments are the summary of the evidence at the close of the trial. These are the arguments that are usually shown in the movies and on television as the key deciding drama of the entire trial. However, in reality. closing arguments, while important, do not usually decide the case. Many jurors have already made up their minds about the evidence before hearing closing arguments. In fact, the judge will instruct the jury before and after the trial that the arguments of the lawyers are NOT evidence and that they must decide the case based on the evidence, not lawyer arguments. Evidence comes from the witness stand, not from the lawyer's arguments.
Thus, while the arguments of counsel can be tremendously entertaining and demonstrate a lawyer's great oratory skills, they are only a small part of a real trial, and a part that is not to be considered as evidence. That being said, most lawyers spend lots of time learning how to deliver a hard-hitting and convincing closing argument. If the evidence is a close call, and the medicine fairly complicated, it can help a juror better understand what the evidence that he heard really means. It can also help refresh the memory of those jurors who may have missed an important point because they were not paying close attention during long and often tedious testimony.
