Closing argument

Closing argument

People v. Pitts (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 606

Improper

Improper to argue that the presumption of innocence applies only until the charges are read. (People v. Cowan (May 23, 2016, B258587 ) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, available at [1].)

Supplemental arguments

Supplemental arguments are arguments made after both sides have made closing arguments and the case has been submitted to the jury.

California Rules of Court, rule 2.1036, adopted 2007, gives trial courts the express power to order supplemental arguments when the jury has reached an impasse. People v. Ardoin (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 102, People v. Young (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1165, and People v. Davis (1957) 48 Cal.2d 241 all discuss the trial court's discretionary power to allow for supplemental arguments. United States v. Evanston, 651 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2011) provides a contrary federal perspective. ​

As for California cases on the topic of supplemental arguments after it's been submitted to the jury, they're usually about re-opening the case because of additional evidence. There's People v. Christensen (1890) 85 Cal. 568, People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, People v. Frohner (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 94, People v. Newton (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 359, People v. Kohn (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 368. Supplemental arguments are within the judge's discretion, but Newton sets out a four-factor test. "Factors to be considered in reviewing the exercise of such discretion include the stage the proceedings had reached when the motion was made, the diligence shown by the moving party in discovering the new evidence , the prospect that the jury would accord it undue emphasis, and the significance of the evidence."