A NC Superior Court judge recently came to our Raleigh office and told us that one of the most common mistakes that he sees attorneys (young and old) make at trial is interjecting personal views into their closing arguments.  Closing arguments at trial can be one of the most important (and fun) parts of a trial but if litigants ignore the rules of closing arguments then they risk intervention by the trial judge.

The rules vary somewhat on this issue between NC criminal and civil trials.  Nonetheless, the NC Court of Appeals’ recent decision from a murder case, State v. Huey, is instructive for all NC litigators.

In Huey, the defendant was convicted by the jury but the NC COA ordered a new trial based in large part on the prosecutor’s closing argument:

Innocent men don’t lie. Innocent men don’t lie because they don’t have to. The truth is not something you practice… The truth just is, and the truth in this case is James Love was shot because of an insult. Now, up until about four months ago Defendant had planned to come in here and tell you all he didn’t do it; he changed his mind, and he’s now testified under oath that he is, in fact, the man who fatally shot James Love[.]… The truth shall set you free unless, of course, you’re on trial for a murder that you committed.

When you look back at 2011 you’ll be able to find the truth. You’re not going to find it over there, not anymore.Defendant is not going to give you the truth. He’s spent years planning to come in here to tell you he didn’t do it, and then in the past four months he’s come up with another story, and he’s decided to go with that instead. But he’s going to stick to that story, that story that he developed after he sat down with his attorney and his defense experts and decided on what he wanted to tell you. You’re not going to find the truth there. But even when Defendant tries to hide the truth from you all, it slips out here and there. For example, it slips out when Defendant says things to his defense expert like my attorneys want me to go with self-defense at trial.

Now, all of a sudden you heard Dr. Corvin. He sat down with [Defendant’s attorney] and Defendant and made sure the defendant understood the law, understood what he was charged with, what the elements were, and understood the defenses and what they meant and the law about the defenses… Now that the law has been explained to him, now that he’s been talked out of claiming I didn’t do it. [Defendant’s attorney] tells you all we’re trying to hide from this. All the evidence shows the box cutter was involved, the box cutter was involved, all the evidence. Do you know who’s not a witness in this case? [Defendant’s attorney]. He wasn’t there. He’s paid to defend Defendant.

There’s no real threat. There’s no real threat except for the one that was created sometime four months ago to try and sell you on something.

Now, I want to talk a little bit about Dr. Corvin, some of his opinions. But before we do that, we’ve got to make something clear. Make no mistake. Dr. Corvin has a client here. He works for Defendant. He is not an impartial mental-health expert. There are several who know[D]efendant: Drs. Fuller, Castro, Abramowitz. He didn’t call any of those, he called Dr. Corvin. Dr. Corvin is part of the defense team, he has a specific purpose, and he’s paid for it. You heard Dr. Corvin earns over $300,000 a year just working for criminal defendants. He is not impartial. In fact, I’d suggest to you he’s just a $6,000 excuse man. That’s what he is.

In ordering a new trial, the NC COA noted that it was “improper” for the prosecutor to imply that Dr. Corvin was committing perjury and that the Defendant’s attorney couldn’t be trusted because he was paid to “defend Defendant.”