opening speech in court example

Opening Statments

Opening statements.

Upson County Courthouse, Thomaston, Georgia, built in 1908 at a cost of $50,000 in the Neoclassical style.

“The opening statement outlines the case it is intended to present. The attorney for plaintiff delivers the first opening statement and the defense follows with the second. A good opening statement should explain what the attorney plans to prove, how it will be proven; mention the burden of proof and applicable law; and present the events (facts) of the case in an orderly, easy to understand manner.”  Mock Trial Material from State of Oregon v. Dulsa (2017-18 Season)

An opening statement is not an argument or a discussion of the law, but rather tells the jury what the evidence will show and serves as a road map for the jury to follow.  Objections by the opposing counsel are not permitted. 

What to know before drafting an opening statement

• Can you tell a brief story about what happened from your side’s point of view?
• What is your theory of the case?
• What are the key elements that have to be proved (by you or the other side)?
• What do you anticipate the evidence will show?
• What are the important facts your side’s witnesses will testify to?
• What themes (words and phrases that convey emotions) do you want to emphasize?
• Who has the burden of proof and what is it?
• What do you want the jury to do?
• How much time do you have? (usually 5 minutes)

Anatomy of an opening: the basics

• A typical introduction: “Your Honor, members of the jury, my name is (full name), representing the prosecution/defendant in this case.”
• If they have already been introduced,  some attorneys just go right into their opening to save time, create drama, and make it look more like a real trial.
• One or two sentences which tell the jury what your case is about
• “My client, Landry Lopez, was fired for reporting an illegal activity to his employer, the restaurant Buddies Burgers.”
•  “This case is brought under Oregon whistle blower law, which prohibits employers for retaliating against employees who have a reasonable belief that an illegal activity has occurred and report it. ” 
• Presented from your side’s  perspective
• Purpose is to give the jury the big picture 
• “The facts of this case are straightforward.  The evidence will show that on May 5, 2016, Landry Lopez saw . . .”
• “Under Oregon whistle blower law there are three elements that must be proven.   First . .”
• “We will call three witnesses: Landry Lopez, Sam Jackson, a former Buddies Burgers employee, and Tyler Erickson, a journalist student.”
• “Mr. Lopez will tell you that . . .”
• “Next, Plaintiff will call Ms. Jackson, a former BB employee . . “.
• “Finally you will the testimony of Tyler Erickson, who was with Mr. Lopez . . . “
• “ This is a civil case and Plaintiff Landry Lopez must prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Explain briefly and illustrate with hands what a preponderance of the evidence means)
• “Oregon’s whistle blower law exists to protect, and encourage, employees to report illegal activity in the workplace. Mr. Lopez engaged in such whistle blower activity and was fired for doing so. “
• “For these reasons, after you have heard all the evidence, at the end of this trial we will ask you to return a verdict in favor of Landry Lopez.”
• “At the end of the trial the State of Oregon will ask you to find the Defendant guilty of . . . . .”
• “Based on the evidence you will hear, at the end of the trial the Defendant will ask you to return a verdict of not guilty

Going Deeper: Ways to Improve the Opening Statement:

• Substance and technique . . .  AND 
• Performance and style

 Substance and Technique

• Opening statements go through many edits and revisions 
• Seek out the input from others
• Try things out – if they don’t work,  don’t use them
• A hook is a sentence or very short paragraph in the introduction which serves as an attention-grabbing element
• The effectiveness of the  hook  is defined by its ability to interest and motivate the jury to listen more closely 
• The hook should arouse interest but not be argumentative
• Story telling is at the heart of a good opening
• A story paints a vivid picture – walk jury through it with each witness
• Use active voice
• Use language that reinforces your themes
• Create interest but don’t tell everything
• The opening statement is not an argument
• Do not argue the facts or law
• Save arguments for closing
• It is OK to state and develop your theory of the case
• Stick with what the facts w ill show a nd what they will not show
• “The evidence will indicate that . . .
• “The facts will show that …”
• Use a few of these lines but not too many, don’t overdo it
• Everything you say should have a purpose
• Don’t ask questions during opening statements (it allows the jury to come up with answers you might not want)
• Do not waste your time on unimportant things or go into excessive detail  (may make the jurors lose focus)
• Use descriptive emotional content in describing the most important facts
• The more you repeat something the more it is remembered and believed
• If you say the evidence will show that  “Mrs. Smith did not run the red light,” the ‘not’ is lost.
• The jury remembers the phrase “ran the red light”
• Instead say the evidence will show “Mrs. Smith came to a complete stop at the signal.”
• The jury remembers “ came to a complete stop at the signal.”
• Use their names
• Depersonalize the opposition’s witnesses with language like ‘Defendant”   or  “Plaintiff”
• Don’t be shy to take on this role
• Refer to yourself   “The State of ___”   not just the  “prosecution.”
• “There are certain facts in this case that are not in dispute . . . “
• “The Defense/Prosecution have agreed . . .”
• “The parties have agreed that . . . “

Performance and Style

Body language is a very powerful tool. We had body language before we had speech, and apparently, 80% of what you understand in a conversation is read through the body, not the words. – Deborah Bull, English dancer, writer, and broadcaster

• Practice, practice, practice
• Find your focus, energy and commitment
• Memorize content, movement, inflections, and gestures 
• This will maximize the points you will get
• Use them sparingly
• Use a legal pad or clip board so they do not flop around 
• Look them in the eye
• Educate  them about the case
• Move closer (5-10 ft.) but not too close
• Be natural to keep their attention
• Example: A prosecutor might want to be more forceful whereas a  defendant might want to evoke sympathy
• Use legal terminology sparingly
• Maintain upright body posture (do not slouch)
• Keep shoulders back to show confidence
• Stay balanced
• If you move, make the movement coincide with transitions between points
• Try not to change position more than 7 times in 5 minutes
• Try not to fidget or have unnecessary gestures or body movements
• Use gestures to create interest and drama
• Gestures include the give, the show, the tell, and s ignposting
• If you are the prosecution and point to the defendant it will be using a harder accusatory “tell” gesture with a pointed finger
• If you are pointing to your own witnesses it will be using an inviting open handed “give” gesture  
• Act professional and confident – even if you are nervous

Preparation Sheet

Opening statement preparation sheet, professor rose teaches opening statement, how to deliver an opening statement (for defendant) - mock trial university, opening statement – university of south carolina mock trialopening statement by student, opening statement and closing argument, judge david barker.

• Get Involved
• Membership & Benefits
• New Lawyers
• Certification
• CLE Calendar
• On Demand CLE
• CLE Committee
• PracticeLaw
• Court Opinions
• Communities
• Member Directory
• Publications
• My CLE Report
• Resource Hub
• MN Find a Lawyer
• Finding Legal Help
• Forms and Resources
• High School Mock Trial
• Bar Foundation
• What We Stand For
• Awards & Recognition
• Announcements
• Related Organizations
• Privacy Notice

Short, sweet, and specific: Effective openings and closings in oral argument

By Kyle R. Kroll

The first impression is the last impression.” It’s a familiar phrase and one that underscores the importance of oral argument. Briefing is usually the first opportunity to make an impression, but appearing before judges in person is often more influential. The opening volley of your oral argument is crucial. But the last impression can be just as important as the first. As the saying goes, “You never win at oral argument, but you certainly can lose.” Your closing lines are therefore mission-critical as well.

What are the hallmarks of a strong opening and closing in oral argument? Most scholarship about oral advocacy focuses on the middle of the argument—the substance. And there is little advice regarding how to make a powerful and persuasive beginning and end. 

To address this information gap, this article surveys just some of the great oral advocates from Minnesota and elsewhere. A review of openings and closings from these greats reveals three key insights: keep it short, sweet, and specific. 

Openings: Theme and roadmap—briefly

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg led with the following piece of advice in remarking on advocacy: “Be brief, be pointed.” 1 For openings, this typically means beginning with a thematic statement and a roadmap of your main points. 2  

The thematic statement should remind the court of the nature of the case and reiterate your client’s story. And the roadmap should introduce  no more than three key points you wish to make. As one practitioner put it: “Write out an introduction that, from the very first sentence, captures the panel’s attention, frames the appeal and the issues, and presents a compelling narrative why your client should prevail….” 3 It’s important that the theme not overshadow the roadmap, however. 4 Although some scholars suggest completing the roadmap in 30 seconds—because sometimes that’s as much time as you will have before an interruption 5 —anything up to 60 seconds should suffice.  

Take, for example, this effective opener in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil , Inc. , from one of the most prolific appellate attorneys in U.S. Supreme Court history, 6 Lisa S. Blatt:

The Lanham Act authorizes courts to remedy trademark violations by awarding infringers profits subject to the principles of equity. The question presented here is whether this phrase, “principles of equity,” requires trademark owners to prove willfulness as an absolute precondition to profit awards. The answer is no for three reasons: First, the phrase “principles of equity” signifies a multifactor analysis where no one factor is controlling. Second, the statutory text and structure supersede any settled willfulness requirement. And, third, there was no such settled background willfulness requirement. 7

To avoid an interruption and ensure you make your key points, consider former U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement’s succinct opening in United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association :

Respondents’ effort to convert all of the land traversed by a Park Service-administered trail into lands in the National Park Service fails for reasons of text, context, and consequences. 8

Clement’s very short roadmap identifies three key points (text, context, and consequences), while promoting the narrative that the respondent is trying to convert private into public land. 

Sometimes it is best to focus the inquiry on the single most dispositive and pressing issue, just as future Chief Judge John R. Tunheim (District of Minnesota) did in Growe v. Emison :

Redistricting is a power and responsibility that is reserved to the states in the first instance. This case presents the Court with an opportunity to illuminate that important principle and clarify the apparent confusion in the lower federal courts. I intend to direct my argument this morning to the abstention issue: Did the federal court err by refusing to abstain to an ongoing state judicial proceeding? And the case presents perhaps one of the most stark examples of what can go wrong when there are jurisdictional disputes in the redistricting process. 9

Nicole A. Saharsky (a University of Minnesota Law School graduate and also one of the most prolific attorneys to argue in front of the U.S. Supreme Court) 10 offered a shorter and sweeter opener on a key issue in DePierre v. United States :

Whether you call it freebase, coca paste or crack, it’s the same thing chemically. It is cocaine base, it is smokeable, it has the same effects on the user; and Congress did not limit the statute to one form of cocaine basis. This court should not do it, either. 11

Aaron Van Oort focused the Court in on a dispositive issue after opening with a strong thematic point and summarizing the compelling facts: 

This case tests and exceeds the very outermost limits of what a person may be insured against under Nebraska law. In 2006, Commander David Kofoed of the Douglas County CSI unit committed the reprehensible act of planting false blood evidence against two innocent men in a murder investigation. For this criminal misconduct he was both convicted of a class four felony and it resulted in the civil judgments that are underlying this proceeding. In this appeal, the plaintiffs are arguing on his behalf—Commander Kofoed—that he has insurance coverage for the damages arising out of his wrongdoing, even for the punitive damages that were awarded against him. That’s incorrect under Nebraska law because Nebraska affirmatively forbids its political subdivisions like Douglas County, his employer, from paying civil judgments that arise out of criminal wrongdoing, whether they do it through insurance or otherwise. 12

In each of these examples, the advocate’s winning opening was short, sweet, and specific. The openings usually include one or more thematic sentences. Theme appeals to ethics and morality, while the roadmap that introduces the key points appeals to logic. These advocates strive not only to show the court that their positions are right, but also that their clients are in the right .  Sometimes the advocates focus on one key issue, but where there is more than one, they often use signposts (“first,” “second,” “third”) to provide verbal organization in their roadmap. The opening roadmaps are short, even though they often paint a clear picture with salient facts or legal principles. Notice also the use of vivid and concrete language—the “sweet” part of the opening that often grabs attention. Further, the openings either implicitly or explicitly call for the court to make a certain holding (reverse, remand, etc.). Short, sweet, and specific. 

Closings: Make a compelling point, and tell the court what you want

Closings should also be short, sweet, and specific. Admittedly, advocates often have little—or no—time for a planned closing. Questions that arise during oral argument regularly fill up that space, and the lawyer runs out of time, only to offer a short “Thank you” at the end. But when time permits, the greats include closings that are short, sweet, and specific. 

For example, in Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld , future Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg offered this concise and compelling closing: 

In sum, appellee respectfully requests that the judgment below be affirmed, thereby establishing that under this nation’s fundamental law, the woman worker’s national social insurance is no less valuable to her family than is the social insurance of the working man. 13  

Justice Ginsburg’s closing is a model of short, sweet, and specific. She concisely boils down the issue on appeal to a clear ultimatum. She asks for specific relief: that the judgment be affirmed. The Court agreed. 

Appeals to bedrock principles—a version of “sweet”—are common among the greats. Eric J. Magnuson, in Padden Law Firm, PLLC v. Bridget Trice, appealed to core principles of client autonomy and choice:

Mr. Padden got the case in the door, he got some lawyers to handle it, and then he disappeared. And at the end of the day, he wants to get his full 30 percent contract because, if you read their brief, a contract is a contract. It’s not when it comes to attorneys’ fees. Not under Minnesota law. Judge Montgomery did the right thing by honoring the client’s wishes. This was a decision by Bridgett Trice and Quincy Adams, that they wanted the lawyers who really got them their recovery to be appropriately rewarded. They have the right as clients to do that, and if you’re going to worry about public policy, the public policy should be in recognizing the client’s interests and protecting those interests. Thank you. 14

Like openings, the best closings share short, sweet, and specific qualities. Effective closings don’t belabor points, but instead reiterate the key points in simple and motivational terms. Prolific advocates inject personal style into their delivery. They include strong themes and narratives that appeal to ethics, morality, and justice. And they implicitly or explicitly ask the court to take a certain action, leaving little room for ambiguity. 

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to success in oral argument. But these winning examples provide useful guidance to practitioners. Keeping openings and closings brief, compelling, and on-point are key ingredients in making a lasting and persuasive impression. 

KYLE R. KROLL is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and an attorney at Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. in Minneapolis, where he practices business litigation at both the trial and appellate levels. The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone, and not of any other person or organization.

The author expresses special thanks to Miriam Solomon for her research assistance and contributions to this article.

1 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Remarks on Appellate Advocacy, 50 S.C.L.R. 567, 571 (1999).

2 See Stephanie A. Vaughan, Experiential Learning, Moving Forward in Teaching Oral Advocacy Skills by Looking Back at the Origins of Rhetoric, 59 S. Tex. L.R. 121 (2017); Sylvia H. Walbolt, Openings in Appellate Oral Arguments, Carlton Fields (3/22/2019). https://www.carltonfields.com/insights/publications/2019/openings-in-appellate-oral-arguments 

3 George W. Hicks, Jr. Oral Argument: A Guide to Preparation and Delivery for the First-Timer, KIRKLAND & ELLIS (8/16/2019). h ttps://www.kirkland.com/publications/article/2019/08/oral-argument_a-guide-to-preparation-and-delivery  

4 Emily R. Bodtke, Arguing at the Appellate Level, Bench & Bar of Minn., April 2017, at 35 (“[I]t is far better to use the limited time available to explain why the law supports a desired outcome, rather than pontificate about the wrongs committed against a client.”).

5 See Hicks, Jr., supra. 

6 See Marlene Trestman, Women Advocates Before the Supreme Court , The Supreme Court Historical Society (5/21/2021). https://supremecourthistory.org/women-advocates-beforethe-supreme-court/ 

7 Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-1233 (last visited 8/26/2021). For more information about this case, in which Ms. Blatt faced off against Mr. Katyal, see Kyle R. Kroll, Lanham Act Disgorgement Just Go More Complicated, Bench & Bar of Minn. (Dec. 2020), https://www.mnbar.org/resources/publications/bench-bar/columns/2020/12/01/lanham-act-disgorgement-just-got-more-complicated. 

8 United states Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-1584 (last visited 8/26/2021).

9 Growe v. Emison, Oyez , https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-1420 (last visited 8/26/2021).

10 See Tresman, supra.

11 DePierre v. United States , Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/09-1533 (last visited 8/26/2021).

12 Sampson v. Lambert, Nos. 17-1104, 17-1106, 17-1114, 17-1117 (8th Cir. 2018), http://media-oa.ca8.uscourts.gov/OAaudio/2018/2/171104.MP3 

13 Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld , Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-1892 (last visited 8/26/2021).

14 Padden Law Firm, PLLC v. Trice , Nos. 18-2451, 18-2576 (8th Cir. 2019) . http://media-oa.ca8.uscourts.gov/OAaudio/2019/10/182451.MP3

KYLE R. KROLL  is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and an attorney at Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. in Minneapolis, where he practices business litigation at both the trial and appellate levels. The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone, and not of any other person or organization.

The author expresses special thanks to Miriam Solomon for her research assistance and contributions to this article.

• Print Edition
• Classified Ads
• Writers' Guidelines
• January/February 2024
• December 2023
• November 2023
• October 2023
• September 2023
• August 2023
• May/June 2023
• January/February 2023

Minnesota State Bar Association | 600 Nicollet Mall Suite 380, Minneapolis, MN 55402 | 612-333-1183 | 800-882-6722 | [email protected] Hennepin County Bar Association | 600 Nicollet Mall Suite 390, Minneapolis, MN 55402 | 612-752-6600 |  [email protected] Ramsey County Bar Association | 332 Minnesota Street Suite 2550, St. Paul, MN, 55101 | 651-222-0846 |  [email protected]

© 2021 Minnesota State Bar Association | Contact Us | Home |  Site Map | Terms of Use | Site Design by ONE400

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Law Studies
• Legal Writing

How to Write an Opening Statement

Last Updated: April 2, 2024 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Clinton M. Sandvick, JD, PhD . Clinton M. Sandvick worked as a civil litigator in California for over 7 years. He received his JD from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1998 and his PhD in American History from the University of Oregon in 2013. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 795,461 times.

An opening statement is the most important points in a trial and it provides an attorney with an opportunity to engage with the jury about their case. An opening statement should always include an introduction; a body, which includes a story and a discussion of disputes and weaknesses; and a conclusion.

Preparing to Write

• Present a clear picture of the case . Your opening statement is one of the only times at trial you will be able to tell a complete, uninterrupted story. After your opening statement, the case will unfold in bits and pieces and may seem unorganized to the jurors.
• Arouse the interest of your jury . You want the jury to be engaged and interested in the case. If they are not, you may find your jury getting bored and becoming inattentive during your presentation of witnesses and evidence.
• Build rapport with your jurors . You want the jurors to like you, as you will ultimately ask them to decide the case in your favor. You want to speak to them as the intelligent people they are, and you want to be sincere in the beliefs you convey.

• Discuss the facts of your case . Your opening statement should be limited to a discussion of the anticipated evidence and what the main issues are. You must not exaggerate or misstate your evidence, you must not refer to inadmissible evidence, and you must not discuss matters that will not be a part of your own case.
• Avoid arguing during your opening statement .Because the point of your opening statement is to introduce the jury to your case, you do not want to turn your opening statement into a series of legal arguments. So long as you are assisting the jury in understanding your evidence, your comments should be permissible. However, once you begin asking the jury to make inferences, interpret facts in your favor, and/or resolve disputes, you are most likely making impermissible arguments.
• Avoid discussing the law in detail during your opening statement . Your opening statement can most likely have a brief introduction to the legal issues on which your case depends. However, you should avoid discussing how the law should be interpreted, and you should avoid applying any of the facts of your case to the law.

Writing Your Opening Statement

• Consider the following example: "On January 23, 2001, Chris McGuigan walked into Riverdale Hospital through the front door to have a minor operation to remove a growth on her arm. One week later, on January 30, she was carried out of the back door dead. What happened in that short week to turn a routine operation into a life and death struggle, and why it never should have happened, is what this case is all about."

• Consider this good example: "At 9:00, Jim McCutcheon left the steak house, and got into his car to head home. The car was in good condition, and Jim was alert, sober and not at all tired. He had drunk two beers with his dinner, but was still in full control of his faculties. He would not have driven if he had been feeling any effects from the beer. Jim won’t even drive with a cell phone on." [9] X Research source

• Look at this example to see how to effectively summarize your case and ask the jury for a verdict: "The bottom line is that the evidence will show that the defendant knew what he was doing when he killed Boyd Farnam. He killed Boyd for revenge - an eye for an eye - because he blamed Boyd for the death of his daughter. The people of this state will therefore ask you at the close of the evidence to find him guilty of murder." [11] X Research source

Practicing Your Opening Statement

• Write your opening statement exactly as you want to present it;
• Reduce it to a general outline; then
• Reduce it one last time to a key word outline that you may or may not use during your opening statement itself.

Writing Help

Expert Q&A

• Be confident and deliver the opening statement you prepared and practiced. Thanks Helpful 2 Not Helpful 0
• Keep your opening statement short and sweet. Depending on the complexity of your case, your opening statement may be longer or shorter than 15 minutes. The closer you can get to a 15 minute opening statement, the better off you will be. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

• State and federal law will dictate exactly what can and cannot be said during an opening statement, so be sure to conform to the necessary rules when writing and delivering your opening statement. Thanks Helpful 11 Not Helpful 5

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/newsletters/trial-evidence/five-tips-engaging-opening-statements/
• ↑ https://www.law.indiana.edu/instruction/tanford/web/reference/04open.pdf
• ↑ https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2017/july-2017/10-tips-for-effective-opening-and-closing-arguments/
• ↑ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/newsletters/trial-evidence/tips-developing-effective-opening-statement/
• ↑ https://www.howtoseparate.ca/10-preparing-court/105-opening-statement

About This Article

To write an opening statement, start with your introductory remarks that summarize the case, state your theme, and intrigue the jurors. Then, go on to introduce your client, as well as any other witnesses involved in the case. Next, identify the main points of contention in the case and tell the jury your story of what happened from your client's point of view. You should also briefly mention any weaknesses in your case to lessen their impact when your opponent brings them up. Finally, conclude your opening statement by summarizing the theme of your case and asking the jury for a specific verdict. To learn how to rehearse and deliver your opening statement, scroll down! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Brody Simmons

Mar 21, 2017

Did this article help you?

Feb 28, 2017

Lena Nuhsbaum

Dec 12, 2018

Judy Rector

Jan 27, 2019

Miguel Robleto

May 11, 2017

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

What are your chances of acceptance?

Calculate for all schools, your chance of acceptance.

Your chancing factors

Extracurriculars.

How to Write Mock Trial Opening and Closing Statements

Do you know how to improve your profile for college applications.

See how your profile ranks among thousands of other students using CollegeVine. Calculate your chances at your dream schools and learn what areas you need to improve right now — it only takes 3 minutes and it's 100% free.

Are you applying to schools and want to know your admissions chances?   Calculate your chances right now and understand your odds before applying.

An Overview of Opening and Closing Arguments

First comes the opening argument , which offers an initial impression to the judge (who will rule the outcome of the case) and scoring attorneys (who actually determine which team wins the round) and must provide a clear, concise and legally solid introduction to the case the presenting attorney’s side intends to prove.

Ending the case is the closing argument , which is the judges’ final impression before an attorney rests their case. It is often longer and more detail-oriented in its argumentation than the opening statement. It also requires a review and summarization of the evidence presented during the case and a legal argument regarding the evidence and what it proves or disproves. Furthermore, a  closing argument often includes a rebuttal section, so attorneys must be ready to respond and challenge opposing arguments in a dynamic setting.

Although these two parts of a case—the opening argument and the closing argument—may seem similar and certainly require the same foundational skills, they are different enough in purpose to require specific and targeted preparation.

The Skills Required for a Strong Opening and Closing Argument

As mentioned earlier, a core set of skills is required for nearly all parts of Mock Trial competition, including opening and closing statements. Mastering certain skills related to confidence in public speaking, clear legal thought and analysis, and quick critical thinking help you exude a polished and professional demeanor while elevating your argument to a higher level.

Public Speaking

Strong public speaking ability is perhaps the most fundamental trait to a successful mock trial attorney and is especially important for the opening and closing arguments. Public speaking skills include much more than knowing one’s argument and presenting it carefully. The finer points of speaking well include considering one’s inflection, tone, pace, emotion, and volume during an argument.

Mastering these factors is often harder than it may seem, simply because different arguments will require the attorney to set different atmospheres in the courtroom. For example, if an attorney wishes to draw attention to the plight of a victim and evoke sympathy, a strong, harsh and forceful presentation may not be the most effective. On the other hand, if the attorney wishes to emphasize the callousness or malice of a defendant in the same case, the presentation previously described would be much better suited.

The key to using the finer points of public speaking is to understand the effect that these factors will have on the audience. When you realize the huge difference that simple changes in volume or pace can make to the overall nature of the argument, you can create an argument perfectly suited to the facts and case at hand.

Understanding the Legal Concepts Behind a Case

Another prerequisite to having a polished and successful opening or closing argument is a thorough understanding of the legal concepts and statutes underlying a case. This understanding is crucial for the attorney presenting these arguments because often in a case, the opening or closing arguments are the only times when legal theory can be presented directly and openly.

Questioning witnesses about events and establishing a story can provide the elements necessary to prove guilt or innocence, but does not afford the opportunity to present legal reasoning. Important parts of a case such as the burden of proof, the elements of the crime, and the requirements to find guilt or innocence can only be brought up during opening or closing arguments.

A clear and accurate explanation of these legalistic parts of the case ensures two things. First, such a presentation portrays the attorney as knowledgeable and competent to a judge. Secondly, a complete and accurate presentation of the legal elements of a case presents the argument of the attorney in a structured, easily digestible way. When a judge hears which elements that will be proved, and understands how the other side must respond to win the case, they will be able to follow the testimony of witnesses much more closely and understand the significance of facts presented. It is important to remember that a case is not ultimately meant to tell a story but to prove guilty or not guilty in terms of the law.

The Importance of Memorization

Finally, one feature common to all outstanding opening and closing arguments is that they are memorized . Although some attorneys and coaches may argue that bringing up notes and referencing them occasionally is acceptable, top teams don’t employ this practice. Memorizing one’s argument accomplishes three major things: it shows confidence, helps the attorney focus on delivery rather than content, and allows for freedom of movement throughout the courtroom that can make the presentation of an opening or closing statement more dynamic.

Memorization automatically displays an elevated level of confidence and preparation to the judge and scoring attorneys. Just seeing an attorney enter the well without any aids and begin an argument is powerful. When an attorney displays confidence in the manner which they speak, this confidence is directly translated to the case they present.

Secondly, memorization helps the attorney better focus and perfect the finer points of public speaking. Without having to worry about looking for their next line, an attorney can focus more of their attention on the quality of their speaking. Additionally, people in general tend to speed up and talk too fast when looking at or reading from a paper. Thus, one of the virtues of memorization is that an attorney automatically speaks more slowly and clearly.

Finally, without an aid or paper, an attorney is not tied to the podium and is not seen as clumsy because they are holding something. This allows the attorney to move about the courtroom, physically pointing to any evidence that may be displayed, and motioning actively, such as counting off elements on one’s hand or gesturing towards certain witnesses. The more an attorney moves about a courtroom, the greater control they have over it. If an attorney can move from the counsel table, walk over to the exhibits, and end in front of the judge, they display an invaluable sense of comfort and poise.

Components of a Successful Opening Argument

There are four major elements to a complete opening argument. Although the exact structure and order of these elements within the overall argument will vary, it is important to include significant detail about each in order to lay the proper groundwork for the case an attorney intends to present. The elements include:

1.  A factual and sequential overview of the major facts in the case important to the presenting attorney’s side. The amount of storytelling involved will vary depending on many factors, including whether the argument is for the prosecution or the defense team.

Because the prosecution team presents their opening statement first, and because they have the burden of proof (the requirement to prove the defendant guilty), their opening will include much more storytelling. Often, a prosecution opening statement can be structured entirely around the storyline of the case. Such an intensive retelling is not necessary for the defense, as they must simply cast a reasonable doubt on the allegations made. Thus, a defense opening will often include a story of much more limited scope and one targeted specifically towards the prosecutorial weaknesses of the case.

2. A description of what the prosecution or defense intends to prove or show . For the prosecution, this should be a statement of the charges, and the corresponding list of actions the defendant must have taken to be found guilty. This statement should be accompanied by a short description of what exactly the defendant did. For the defense, a focus should be placed on the weakest legal elements that the prosecution must prove. Mock trial cases will never favor one side over the other, so there will always be the opportunity to poke holes in the argument of the other side.

For example, if the prosecution must prove “malice aforethought” by the defendant, but the defense will call a character witness to testify to the defendant’s good nature, this should be brought up in the opening statement. One thing the defense should take care to avoid is appearing to argue their case with the opening statement. The opening statement is not the place to draw legal conclusions, as no evidence has been presented yet. The opening statement is the place to present a side’s theory of the case and any important facts that will come to light during the trial.

3.   A short explanation of the evidence that will be presented . For the prosecution, this can include actual physical evidence, such as a diagram or letter. These should be referenced and used during opening statements by the prosecution. Additionally, both the prosecution and defense should be sure to emphasize particularly important facts to their side during the opening. If the defense plans to have a witness testify who will provide an alibi for the defendant, this should be brought up in the opening.  

4.  A short description of what each of the witnesses will testify . This provides a roadmap for the judge and scoring attorneys and helps them know what to expect from each witness. It often helps to present a side’s witnesses in the order that they will appear. This allows for a streamlined introduction to the facts, as well as the structure of the case, and minimizes confusion created by varying orders.

To summarize, the four elements of a successful opening argument are an overview of the major facts of the case, a description of what the prosecution/defense intends to argue, a description of the evidence to be presented, and a description of each witness’ testimony.  By including these four elements into an opening argument, an attorney will be sure to cover all the bases necessary for a solid case foundation and will fill in any gaps of knowledge the judge may have, allowing them to focus entirely on the direct examination of witnesses that follows.

Mistakes to Avoid in an Opening Argument

There are certain very common mistakes which should be avoided at all costs during opening statements.

One of the most often encountered occurs when one side states what evidence the opposing side will show . Although both teams have a pretty good idea of what the other will attempt to prove and what evidence or witnesses they will use because of the structure of Mock Trial, this knowledge should not be used in opening statements. Just like a real attorney does not know what exactly the opposition’s witnesses will testify, the same holds true for Mock Trial.

The second common mistake to avoid is drawing legal conclusions. Although it is fine to say what their side intends to do, an attorney should not present their opening statement as a conclusive legal argument. Phrases such as “the evidence will show” are always good ways to make a point while observing this boundary.

Components of a Successful Closing Argument

There are also four important elements present in a good closing argument. These elements are similar to those listed in the opening statement but differ in two significant ways.

First and most importantly, closing occurs after a case has been presented, meaning that all evidence and testimony has been heard. This allows an attorney to speak much more concretely about what evidence favors their case. Secondly, closing argument often includes a rebuttal, where each attorney has the opportunity to argue points brought up in the opposing side’s argument. This allows for a much more direct attack on the weak legal points of the opposing side’s case than anywhere else in the trial. The components of a closing argument are as follows:

•   A complete review of the important evidence in the case. Although a closing will be longer than an opening, it is still not long enough to bring out every piece of evidence presented, so an attorney must limit themselves only to the most crucial and significant. This is the place for a recap of anything that tends to prove or disprove elements of the crime.
•   An attack on the opposing side’s case . If an opposing witness was impeached during cross examination—that is, they made a statement during questioning inconsistent with their witness statement in the casebook, and the questioning attorney formally drew attention to this inconsistency—this is the place to remind the court. If the opposing side failed to adequately address a significant element of the crime, this is where it can be brought up. The closing argument is not only the place to reaffirm one’s argument but to help discredit and tear down the argument of the opposing side. This can be done in a practiced manner as part of the standard closing statement, but it can also be included in the rebuttal, which is the third element of a closing argument.

3. The rebuttal. The rebuttal is usually around one minute of time where an attorney can counter directly what the other side has claimed. It often helps if an attorney takes notes on possible ideas for rebuttal throughout the trial and starts and ends their rebuttal with rehearsed and memorized statements. This gives the rebuttal a natural and fluid presentation while also making it dynamic and unique to every trial.

• An emotional appeal. If so desired, the closing argument is the ideal place for an emotional appeal to the judge.  This can work for both the prosecution and defense. For example, the prosecution can remind the judge of the suffering of the victim and the need for justice. The prosecution can also play up and emphasize any negative characteristics of the defendant in order to strengthen this emotional appeal. Conversely, the defense can emphasize the bright prospects of the defendant, and any positive characteristics they may possess. These kinds of additions do not fit into every case and are usually more stylistic than substantive, but can be powerful tools when used in the closing argument.

Mistakes to Avoid in a Closing Argument

Just as with opening, there are common mistakes to avoid when conducting the closing argument. One of the most common mistakes is to incorrectly quote the opposing counsel’s argument . It can be a powerful tool to use a person’s exact words against them in argument, but any effect is lost if they are misquoted. The same goes for misquoting witnesses. At best the judge will see it as a careless mistake. At worst, it can even be seen as a malicious attempt to deceive the court.

Another extremely common mistake is to reference evidence that had actually been excluded via objection . For example, if an attorney intended on having a particular piece of testimony included in the case, but this testimony was excluded because of an objection, it is stricken from the record and cannot be used as evidence. If an attorney quotes something that was actually excluded, it is possible for the opposing attorney to call them out during rebuttal or bring up the issue before scoring is submitted. As such, the best way to avoid making this mistake is to keep careful track of what evidence comes in and what stays out and to know one’s closing well enough to be able to modify it if necessary and avoid any excluded evidence.

The more one competes and observes others in Mock Trial, the more they will internalize what it means to have a great argument. The most important tip for writing a good opening or closing is to first stick to the fundamentals of the case . An attorney must first cover the basics of the law and case. Making sure these elements are solid both factually and legally, will create a foundation upon which witnesses and examining attorneys will be able to build on. Once the content itself has been finalized, mastering delivery and presence will result in an extremely effective opening or closing argument.

Hopefully, armed with these tips, you’ll be well on your way to creating an opening or closing argument that will propel your mock trial team to victory.

Want access to expert college guidance — for free? When you create your free CollegeVine account, you will find out your real admissions chances, build a best-fit school list, learn how to improve your profile, and get your questions answered by experts and peers—all for free. Sign up for your CollegeVine account today to get a boost on your college journey.

Related CollegeVine Blog Posts

• Free Consultation: (800) 553-8082 Tap To Call Tap To Text

Example Opening Statements

Below are opening statements  our lawyers have given at trial in personal injury and wrongful death cases.

These are actual trial transcripts from court trials, including several multi-million dollar verdicts. We also have a draft opening statement in the text below.

We also have sample motions involving opening statements from plaintiffs and defendants and the PowerPoint presentations connected to our openings. The purpose is to arm you with the tools to make the right choices to give your best possible opening statement whether you are preparing for trial or a moot court presentation.

Opening Statement Examples

• Plaintiff’s and Defense Opening Statements in an Ankle Fracture Trial
• Plaintiff’s Opening in Medical Malpractice Wrongful Death
• Traumatic Brain Injury Plaintiff’s Opening
• Defense opening (State Farm) Part 1 and Part 2
• Car Accident Plaintiff’s Opening Statement ( click here for the complete transcript of the entire trial )
• Defendant’s Opening #1
• Defendant’s Opening #2
• Medical Malpractice Opening Statement ($10 million verdict)

These example opening statements give lawyers ideas on how to approach a jury trial. Use what works for you and toss the rest.

• Sample closing statements

PowerPoint Opening Statement

Below are PowerPoint presentations from an opening statement in a case we tried where the client was awarded $5.5 million and another where the client was awarded $5.2 million. The first is truncated because we took out much of the good stuff because we do not want to name the doctor.

The PowerPoint had many deposition clips, and we did not wish to put the doctor and his experts videotaped depositions online. In the second PowerPoint example, we sought and received permission from the client to post his material online without redactions.

For the $10 million jury verdict in Baltimore City, the clients — who won a civil justice award from the Maryland Association of Justice — graciously agreed to allow us to put the entire opening statement and PowerPoint #3 online to help other attorneys without any redactions.

• Sample PowerPoint for Opening Statement
• Sample PowerPoint #2
• Sample PowerPoint #3

Our lawyers are giving high-tech opening statements that give the jury and the court a chance to understand the evidence. It is very effective in communicating to jurors information in the manner in which they demand it in 2021.

Defense lawyers are now trying to stop us from showing the jury what the evidence will show by filing motions in advance.

• Example  defendants’ motions
• Our response

We usually win this motion without qualification. The law and common sense are ridiculously on our side. But defense counsel is fighting back hard, and plaintiffs’ lawyers have to be ready to show the court what the law is.

14 Tips for Giving an Opening Statement to Plaintiffs’ Lawyers

This thinking is reflected in the example opening statements our lawyers provide above. It would be nice to pretend we invented this format. But our approach is liberally stolen from Don Keenen ( Reptile),  David Ball ( Damages ), and countless others.  

• Speak in the present tense . This method of storytelling keeps the listener interested and creates a real sense of immediacy that is critical to keeping the jury’s attention
• Juries expect a high-tech presentation in 2023. Give it to them. Use technology to show them the evidence. Show the evidence you plan to use: deposition testimony, medical records, documents, etc. Don’t use PowerPoint and just give them an outline.
• That said, please don’t overuse the phrase “the evidence will show.”  (Don’t overuse any phrase.) The time to sprinkle that in is if you are about to say something that you arguably should not say in an opening to throw off an objection.
• Present your story chronologically . Flashing back and forth is great if you are watching A Handmaid’s Tale . But it can be wildly confusing with an oral story. You must win the battle of keeping it simple and educating the jury.
• Don’t write checks you can’t cash. Tell them what the evidence will show. Don’t oversell the case you have .
• Don’t begin advocating until you are more than halfway through your opening. Just give the facts neutrally . You have to develop credibility with the jury before pointing fingers.
• Educate the jurors about the case . Juries appreciate lawyers that provide real information to them that they can use.
• Save your long speech about your gratitude for their service. Jurors want to do their jobs corr ectly and go home. They don’t care about your gratitude, which almost invariably comes off as hokey.  I’m also not a fan of “ladies and gentlemen” because people do not talk that way in real life. Get right to what this case is about.
• How long should your opening statement take? It depends on the case. The key is ensuring every word matters and that you are as streamlined as possible. You must have a clear purpose for every point you make in your opening statement.
• Explain the case to the juror like you would try to explain it to a friend. Save the big words and the pomp and circumstance.
• Have a single sentence theme. If you can’t find a single sentence to summarize your case, you are not trying hard enough. You need to be able to distill a case, even a complex case, down to one sentence.
• Don’t tell the jury you are giving them a road map. No one says, “Oh, goodie! A road map!” Just use this first chance to talk to the jury to tell the story.
• Begin by telling the jury the simple rule that would be applied to the case . Jurors are worried they won’t be able to do their jobs because they won’t understand it. This rule reassures them that there will be a clear road to make their decision. The rule is usually a safety rule .
• Bonus Tip: read this book . Then reread it.

How to Write an Opening Statement

Every lawyer has a different process for preparing an opening. My process for an opening statement is to spend no more than an hour or two writing it out as if I was required to write a transcript of the opening statement. I read it out loud to myself, then make a shorter handwritten outline, never looking back at the original draft.

I never even bring the opening statement outline to court – it is all just a process. When lawyers draft a script and stick with it, their presentation is too canned, and they are no longer having a real conversation with the jury.

The opening statement template below is patterned in part after David Ball’s suggested chronology of an opening statement (with modifications we have made consistent with our practical experience and the specifics of that case).

Example Opening Statement I. Introduction

(Thoughts on how to begin) – the biggest key here is to make the small talk brief and get right to it.

II. What Are the Rules?

The defendant is Maryland Machine Contractors. The testimony you are going to hear is going to be complicated at times. But the rule you will be asked to apply by the judge is a simple rule: Did Maryland Machine build a mechanical system that was defectively designed that led to the death of Cindy Manning?

III. What Did Defendant Do? (opening focuses first on what the defendant did)

In 2019, the defendant Maryland Machine built a machine system at Crawford Sugar Factory. This is an exhibit of what they built. If you have lived in Baltimore, you have almost certainly seen the Crawford Sugar sign at the Inner Harbor. The factory has been here since the ’20s. But the system was redesigned in 2020 and built by Maryland Machine.

The system is in a place called the Wash House. In the Wash House, a hot, chemical slurry is used to convert the sugar that comes out of the fields into the sugar you put in your coffee.

So Crawford Sugar says to Maryland Machine, we want to redo this area of the Wash House, here are some drawings with our idea of how we think it should be built. And Maryland Machine said okay, we will build you a system.

This is the 2-3-8 tank. It holds approximately 5,000 gallons of hot liquid slurry. As a part of the beginning of the refining process, raw sugar is pumped through pipes into this 5,000-gallon tank, where it is combined with lime and carbon dioxide resulting in a hot liquid slurry that contains calcium carbonate. This solution is heated to 160 to 185 degrees.

Now in this tank is raw sugar and these chemicals but also a lot of junk: rocks, wood, debris, you name it. And it all comes down this pipe into this strainer and then gets sent up for more processing.

This is a valve you can turn on and off to stop the flow. So if you want to service the strainer, clean it out, or whatever, you need to close this value.

The strainer needs to be cleaned between three and six times a day. So when they regularly cleaned the strainer, they had to:

• Close this valve, and
• Close this valve over here that is downstream of the strainer,
• Let the slurry drain out of a small elbow valve right here,
• And then there is a little valve at the bottom of the strainer right here, then a small valve at the top of the strainer right here.
• If the slurry has been drained out of the system, the Earth System’s Operator – this job is called – removes the 15-pound strainer cover, pulls out the strainer basket, cleans it out, and starts over again.

That is the normal cleaning process or if a full filter clogs the system.

Now, what if the system was blocked in the pipes instead of the strainer? The operator would not know the difference. This situation creates a risk of the unexpected release of stored energy that could cause injury to employees, which is what happens here.

One night, Cindy Manning arrives at work and found that the system she was working on was clogged. Being a new employee, she calls her supervisor, a gentleman named Joe Rivera. She asks for help. Mr. Rivera asks Henry Taylor to help who in turn asks Mike Foster to assist Cindy in unclogging the system. You are going to have the opportunity to meet Mr. Foster. Foster is an important witness because he is the only living eyewitness to the accident.

Mr. Foster goes and sees – as he was told to expect – that the 2-3-8 Strainer is blocked. So he did what he was supposed to do, what he was trained to do. He shut off all of the valves that could bring about an unexpected release of the hot slurry, and he takes off the lid to the strainer.

So Mr. Foster tries to stick a rod up to clean out the blockage. Then he attempts to squirt some water. Nothing worked. So they stand there talking, trying to figure out what to do next. Suddenly, hot slurry heated to between 160 and 185 degrees comes down on Cindy Manning. She tries to escape, but she falls. When she gets up, she is covered in this hot chemical slurry.

IV. What Were the Immediate Harms? (sticking just to the immediate harm for now).

After six days of unimaginable suffering, Cindy Manning died.

V. Who Are We Suing and Why?

After the accident, Crawford did an investigation as to how the accident could have been avoided. A week later, Crawford issued a report on the accident because they wanted to find out how the accident happened and how it could be avoided in the future.

A lot of smart and qualified people with years of experience looked at this question and concluded that this accident could have been avoided. While I suspect none of you are plumbers, engineers, or pipe fitters, I bet if I gave each of you five minutes with this question, you could figure out how Cindy Manning’s death could have been easily avoided just as the folks at Crawford’s did.

The report said that there should have been a valve right in front of the strainer. And had that been there, Cindy Manning&rs quo;s life would have been saved. That hot slurry would never have come out if Maryland Machine had put a valve in front of that strainer. The minor expense of setting that valve (showing exhibit) in a way that protects Cindy Manning from those hot chemicals.

Now AFTER the accident, Crawford did what should have been done in the first place – they put in the valve that would have saved Cindy Manning’s life. But at that point, it was too late.

You are going to hear more on this from Dr. David Donahue. Dr. Donahue served for 15 years as the chairman of the Machine Engineering department at the University of Maryland. Now, he spends his time working for the Navy in fighting against terrorism. While the engineering needed to fight terrorism is probably a lot more complicated than the issues, in this case,

Dr. Donahue will tell you that it is not at all complicated, the need for this valve was a simple thing that anyone should know. Dr. Donahue is also going to talk to you about pressure gauges and how cheap they are to install and how they would have helped provide information that would have prevented her death.

You are also going to hear from Lee Tompkins. He is going to tell you the same thing as Dr. Donahue – that putting a valve here before the accident was common sense that any reasonable plumber or installer should have known.

You are also going to hear from Dr. Henry from Johns Hopkins. He is going to tell you that this accident at Crawford caused Cindy Manning’s death. He is also going to tell you that it does not take much of this slurry on your body to cause grave pain and, ultimately, death.

You are going to hear from an economist who is going to tell you what Cindy Manning’s lost wages were over the rest of Brenna’s life.

You are going to hear from Cindy Manning’s family. They are going to give you an idea of what her death was like.

Finally, and for your purposes, most importantly, you are also going to have the opportunity to hear from Michael Foster, the only living witness of the accident.

VI. What is Wrong with the Defense? (Before Coming to Court, What Did We Have to Make Sure of First?)

Crawford Sugar’s defense is very simple: Michael Foster, the man who is the only living eyewitness to this accident, is a liar. That is their case and it is illustrative of how they see these facts. Under almost any scenario you can imagine, putting this obvious valve in saves Cindy Manning’s life.

There is only one theory that can be offered to argue that putting in an additional valve wouldn’t have made a difference because one of the employees was misusing the equipment. So here is the theory you are going to hear: Mike Foster chose to use a dangerous procedure in his effort to clear the elbow and the strainer.

After the accident, Crawford does an investigation. And they issue a report. And the report essentially says that it was the operator’s fault. But let’s take a look at this system. I don’t think any of you are plumbers, engineers, or pipefitters. But if I give you the project of how you isolate risk from this elbow when working on this strainer, I’ll bet all of you would figure it out within 5 minutes. Put a valve right here. Then you can safely work on the strainer.

That valve would solve two problems. One, it would protect against the risk of the elbow. Second, it would protect against any problems with this valve here. This valve, called a foot valve, is closed with a chain. You need to know that the stem is closed by looking at it visually. And on the chance that something is stuck in the valve, it will seem closed when it is not closed. But there was no valve here before the accident that took Cindy Manning’s life. But Mike Foster did not do that. He will testify at this trial and tell you exactly what he did.

VII. Cindy’s Death

They take Cindy to the Johns Hopkins Bay View Burn Center. It is Friday, July 28, 2019. She is suffering from first, second, and third-degree burns that are made worse by the horrible chemicals in the slurry.

When her sisters arrive at the hospital, they find their sister Cindy in tremendous pain. Her sister Megan Jones notices that huge pieces of skin are hanging off her body. You would think that they would give her immediate pain medication but they could not give her anything for the pain initially until they were able to ascertain exactly what kind of chemicals were in the slurry.

The next day, she was able to get pain medications but they were not having much of an impact. She’s put in this special bed for burn victims that make you feel like you are falling so Cindy feels compelled to move, making her burns worse.

So she just lies there in bed, in great pain with an incredible desire to move around. In fact, the desire to move was so powerful that Cindy had to be held down with restraints. She’s burning up, she’s dying of thirst because they cannot give her water, and now they have to restrain her.

You hope when you go to the hospital you get better. Cindy Manning got worse and worse. On Monday, she was with her sister and had an itch on her face, she scratched it and a huge chunk of her skin came off. Because she was in so much pain, her sisters ask the doctor to give Cindy more pain medication. The doctor tells them that if they give her any more morphine, she might forget to breathe.

On Tuesday, the doctors operate on Cindy to try to save her life. The next day, Tuesday, the nurse comes to take her to surgery. The process of moving Cindy is so painful. She resists and it takes several nurses to hold her down. But the doctors tell Cindy’s family that she will be in a virtual coma after the operation because of a number of painkillers and sedatives they were going to give her. This brings some relief to the family because she has been suffering so much.

Unfortunately, after the operation, Cindy is wide awake and in more pain than ever. She has tubes running down her throat,. The IV has been placed into her neck because they can no longer find an adequate vein anywhere else on her body. Her blood pressure becomes elevated. They take her off any pain medication.

So her pain that was unbearable now rises to a new level. And the fluids they are pumping into her now go directly to her tissue. Her whole body swells to the point where her nose splits apart. She is biting so tightly on the breathing tube that the nurse has to tell her to stop or she will lose her oxygen supply.

At some point, she is becoming unrecognizable to her family because of the swelling. She realizes she is going to die and refuses to see her daughter, not wanting Deanna’s last memory to be of her mother this way. By Thursday, her once healthy organs begin shutting down one by one. Her last words are, not surprisingly, “It hurts.” And, mercifully, she dies.

VIII. Conclusion

This one I never bother to plan because I think the conclusion comes straight from the heart – so I don’t even plan to plan. But I read David Ball on Damages (now “Damages 3”) before every trial and I tell them how much money we are seeking (although there are now differing schools of thought on this in 2021 with the tide beginning to turn back to not giving a damages number in opening statements).

Frequently Asked Opening Statement Questions

How do you write an opening statement?

You write an opening statement by crafting a story. People understand stories. You have to tell them the story of the case. For a plaintiff’s lawyer, you have to tell the story in such a way that a jury can conclude on their own that the defendant is responsible for all of the victim’s harms and losses.

Above, we provide example opening statements and a sample outline of an opening that follows the format we use in most cases.

Elsewhere on our website, you can read sample opening statements that we have written.

How long should an opening statement be?

Good lawyers calibrate the length of their opening statement to the expected length of complexity of the material. It is a delicate balance. In a complex medical malpractice case, our lawyers usually shoot for 30 minutes (and it usually bleeds into 45 minutes). In a car accident case where the issues are not complex, 20 minutes will almost always be sufficient.

The key is not to waste words. Every single thing you say to the jury in opening should be calculated to get your message across without wasting their time.

How do you start an opening statement?

Many lawyers begin their opening by introducing themselves, profusely thanking the jury, and trotting out the old saw that “An opening statement is not evidence but just a road map of how you expect the puzzle pieces to come together, blah, blah, blah. This is the advice you get when you research “How to write an opening statement” and it is plain wrong.

This is the apex of juror attention. Use it. Before we began with our theme of our case. Today, we use a less adversarial approach because we have not established enough credibility with the jury to begin arguing. Instead, we tell them the most important rule in the case that they need to use to reach a verdict.

If you are giving a civil opening statement, you need to explain early the burden of proof in a civil case.  Jurors are so used to beyond a reasonable doubt.  Focus groups on this issue are mind-blowing.  A good lawyer sets this clear and straight from the beginning.

Are there limits on what lawyers can say in opening statements?

Lawyers are given great latitude when giving opening statements in personal injury cases. But lawyers must have a reasonable belief in the admissibility of the evidence they present in an opening statement.

• Get more opening statement FAQs

More Information About Handling Opening Statements and Wrongful Death Claims

• Toolkit for Plaintiff’s Counsel (free templates of virtually everything related to handling civil tort claims)
• Overview of the available claims that can be made in fatality cases
• Maryland Wrongful Death Statute: take a look at Maryland law
• Moot Court Advice : how to use these templates to make your moot court mock trial work for you
• Contact Us with a question or comment
• Verdicts & Settlements
• Client Reviews
• Awards & Recognition
• Attorney Referrals
• Community Involvement
• Miller & Zois Scholarship
• Baltimore Office
• Washington DC Office
• Ronald V. Miller, Jr
• Laura G. Zois
• Justin Zuber
• Lisa A. Miller
• Medical Misdiagnosis
• Surgery Malpractice
• Hospital Malpractice
• Medication Error
• Emergency Room Error
• Birth Injury
• Drugs & Medical Device
• Car Accidents
• Truck Accidents
• Motorcycle Accidents
• Nursing Home Negligence
• Wrongful Death
• Premises Liability
• Products Liability
• Baltimore City
• Baltimore County
• Prince George's County
• Montgomery County
• Anne Arundel County
• Frederick County
• Washington DC
• More Communities
• Legal Blogs
• FAQs - Questions & Answers
• Child Safety Center
• Time to Bring a Claim
• Determining Case Valuation
• How Long to Settle
• Settlement Calculator
• Case Valuation for Settlement
• Anatomy of a Trial
• Pre Trial Filings & Motions
• Trials & Juries
• Tools & Sample Documents
• Mediation & Arbitration
• Appeals & Appellate Practice
• Maryland Law
• Erie Insurance
• Progressive

HOW TO WRITE A DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT FOR A MOCK TRIAL

INTRODUCTION:

Members of the jury, this case is of [mistaken identity] or [My client punched Mr. Jones, but acted in self-defense] or [my client did stab her husband, but was temporarily insane due to mental illness]. [ There are a limited number of defenses to a criminal charge in a court of law. I cannot list them all here, but a defense lawyer should always be able to summarize his or defense in one or two sentences or phrases. Sometimes it is the position of the defense that the defendant is not guilty of the charge as alleged, but is guilty of a lesser charge. (For example, my client struck the victim with a stick, but the stick was too small to count as a “assault with a deadly weapon.”)]

CONTRADICT THE STATE’S THEORIES:

A common defense attorney strategy in opening statements is to start critiquing the state’s case, and letting the jury know that there are two sides to the story. Studies show that jurors often make up their mind about a case right after opening statements, so you need to start strong. Also remember that as a defense attorney, you get the last word in opening statements. The prosecutor has to go first and unlike closing arguments, they may not speak again and rebut what you have to say. So take the opportunity to shoot holes in their case. In theory, you can reserve your opening statement until after the prosecution has rested, but this is rarely done (particularly in mock trial competitions). So how do you contradict the prosecutor’s opening? Here are some examples:

Members of the jury the prosecutor explained in her opening statement that her witness Mrs. Wong will testify that she witnessed the robbery from across the parking lot and she identified my client as the guilty party. However, Mrs. Wong will herself admit that it was very dark and rainy that night, and that she admitted she was only “90 percent sure” it was my client.

The prosecutor explained in his opening statement that my client confessed to the murder. However, this “confession” only happened after my client was with the police for 14 hours straight, and was kept up all night without any food or even any water.

The prosecutor has stated that my client is guilty of DUI because he blew over .08 on the breath test, but it will be shown that the breath instrument was no working on the night in question and it had not be calibrated in over two years.

So it is your job from the start to explain to the jury that there are two sides to the story.

SUMMARIZE EACH WITNESSES’ TESTIMONY:

Members of the jury, as the defense attorney, I will call three witnesses to testify. My first witness will be Doctor Jerome McGinnis. He will testify that he has been a psychologist for 30 years, and his specialty is forensic psychology. He will testify that he did an evaluation of my client and found him to be insane due to paranoid schizophrenia. My second witness will my Martha Jackson, who is a school psychologist at Lakeside High, where my client went to school. She will testify that my client suffered from mental illness dating back to 1999. Lastly my third witness will be Antonio Garza. Mr. Garza will testify that he was roommates with my client when he was in college, and he will testify as to the psychological breakdown that my client suffered during his years at Columbus University.

Laying out each witness’s expected testimony sequentially is a little formulaic and can come across as a little dry sometimes. Over-reliance on this structure will mean you are unlikely to win a mock trial national championship, but if this is your first competition, a structure like this will be a good starting point. As you progress in the competition, you can vary from the formula to make it a little unpredictable and think on your feet a bit more.

CONCLUSION:

At the conclusion of this trial, the defense will ask that you find that our client is not guilty. The prosecution will not meet their burden of proof. A verdict of guilty would be a travesty. Thank you.

For more information visit our Mock Trial Homepage .

Get in touch with steve graham today.

• Name: Please enter your name.
• Phone This isn't a valid phone number.
• Email: Please enter your email address. This isn't a valid email address.
• Are you a new client? Are you a new client? Yes, I am a potential new client No, I'm a current existing client I'm neither Please make a selection.
• Message Please enter a message.

Opening Statements and Closing Arguments: Making Your Case: Famous (and Infamous) Cases

• Famous (and Infamous) Cases
• Research Guides & Organizations
• Journals and News
• Westlaw and Lexis
• Print Resources
• Video and Audio Resources
• Evaluating Internet Resources
• Famous Trials Collection of original essays, trial transcripts and exhibits, maps, images, and other materials relating to the greatest trials in world history.

Opening Statements

1868: Impeachment of President Andrew Johnson

• Opening Statement by Benjamin Butler for the House of Representatives
• Opening Statement of Benjamin Curtis for President Johnson

1873: Trial of Susan B. Anthony

• Opening Statement by U.S. District Attorney Richard Crowley
• Opening Statement by Hon. Henry R. Selden for the Defense

1893: Trial of Lizzie Borden

• Opening Statement by A. J. Jennings for the Defense

1945: Nuremburg Trials

• Opening Statement of Justice Robert H Jackson
• Opening Statement by Brigadier General Telford Taylor in the Doctors Trial

1987: Trial of Bernhard Goetz

• Opening Statement for the Defendant by Barry Slotnick
• Opening Statement for the Prosecution by Gregory Waples

1997: Trial of Timothy McVeigh 

• Opening Statement of the Prosecution
• Opening Statement of the Defense

2006: Trial of Zacarias Moussaoui

• Opening Statement by U.S. Attorney Robert Spencer
• Opening Statement by Defense Attorney Edward MacMahon

Closing Arguments

• Closing Argument of Thaddeus Stevens for the House of Representatives  
• Closing Argument of Attorney General Henry Stanbery for President Johnson

1907: Trial of Bill Haywood (labor leader)

• Summation by the Prosecution
• Summation of Clarence Darrow

1911: Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

• Closing Argument of Charles S. Bostwick for the Prosecution
• Closing Argument of Max D. Steuer for the Defense

1921: Black Sox Trial

• Excerpts of Closing Arguments

1921 Sacco and Vanzetti Trial

• Closing Argument of Frederick G. Katzmann for the Prosecution
• Closing Argument of Fred Moore for the Defense
• Closing Argument of Jeremiah J. McAnarney for the Defense

1924: Trial of Leopold & Loeb

• Robert Crowe's Summation for the State
• Clarence Darrow's Summation for the Defense

1946: Nuremburg Trials

• Closing Argument of Justice Robert Jackson

1969-70: "Chicago 8" Trial

• Closing Argument for the Prosecution by Thomas Foran
• Closing Argument for the Defendants by William Kunstler

1970-71: Trial of Charles Manson

• Closing Argument for the Prosecution by Vincent Bugliosi

1995: O.J. Simpson Trial

• Closing Argument of Johnnie Cochran
• << Previous: Home
• Next: Trial Skills >>
• Last Updated: Sep 28, 2023 12:17 PM
• URL: https://libraryguides.law.pace.edu/opening

• Global directory Global directory
• Product logins Product logins
• Contact us Contact us

Our Privacy Statement & Cookie Policy

All Thomson Reuters websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.

• Privacy Statement
• Cookie Policy

Join our community

Sign up for industry-leading insights, updates, and all things AI @ Thomson Reuters.

CoCounsel: The GenAI assistant for legal professionals

Bringing together generative AI, trusted content, and expert insights for a new era of work.

Related posts

How to succeed as a summer law associate

Parol evidence rule exceptions in contracts

Tackling the most important topics of law school: The rule against perpetuities

More answers.

Fighting financial crime

What to do if you think your company breached a contract?

How businesses can responsibly use AI and address ethical and security challenges

BarristerBlogger

Matthew Scott's Legal Comment Argument and Discussion. Comment Awards 2015 Best Independent Blog

The Beginner’s guide to the closing speech

I have no way of knowing how important closing speeches are. I know of no research that even begins to throw light on whether they make the slightest difference to the outcome of a trial, or whether, by the time for speeches has arrived, juries or magistrates have usually made up their minds.

So most of what I am going to say is not based on solid evidence.

Nevertheless my feeling, and one that is probably shared by most advocates, is that the closing speech is one of the most crucial parts of the case. It is where you have the chance to marshal your arguments; to make the points explicitly that previously had only been implicit in your questions; and, just asimportant, to deal with the points made by the other side.

Visual Aids

It is surprising how little impact technology has made in most court-room speeches. There are some cases in which counsel operate clever computer gimmickry but they remain the exception, usually for very complicated or serious cases, and not the rule.

The ghastly paraphernalia of the “presentation” – Powerpoint, interactive whiteboards and bullet point projections of what the speaker is about to say – have, I am glad to say, made no impact at all. This is probably because such aids actually distract from what the speaker is saying.

That is not to say that a few well chosen props cannot be quite effective. Nothing beats the drama of handling Exhibit 1, the blood-stained knife, and drama makes a jury listen. I was once fortunate enough to be led by Nigel Pascoe QC – who knows more about both advocacy and theatre than anyone – in a baby shaking case. Although he could not produce a baby for his closing speech, he did the next best thing by producing a realistic doll which he then proceeded to manhandle in a vivid demonstration of how a parent should not behave with a crying baby.

But with or without props, only two things define how persuasive your speech is: what you say and how you say it.

Different types of closing speech .

There is of course an important difference between a closing speech for the defence and one for the prosecution. As a rule the defence will be trying to ask difficult questions, while the prosecution will be trying to provide irrefutable answers.

There are also differences between both the technique and the procedure in a Magistrates Court (where generally speaking the prosecution does not make a closing speech) to that in the Crown Court. (where it usually does).

So here are some hints for advocates who have not had much experience. Many of them are, of course, of equal relevance to prosecutors and defenders. But in general the  focus will be on representing the defence.

Preparation for the speech starts when the jury panel comes into court

I don’t mean by this that you need to have started to write a speech before the trial starts, although you should, of course, have a strategy and the beginnings of a plan for how you would like to address the jury at the end.

What I do mean is that when you stand up to make your final effort to persuade the jury you must be somebody that they will pay attention to. They don’t have to like you – it is a good thing if they do – but if they don’t take you seriously, and especially if they don’t trust you, there is no way that you will be able to persuade them of anything.

So whenever the jury is in court, and preferably of course even when they are not, you must be sensible, reasonable and straightforward . It is also a great help to be polite. Amongst contemporary politicians few have generated as much vitriol from his opponents as the Education Secretary Michael Gove. Watch the way he deals with it: he is scrupulously polite to all, no matter how rude they are to him. You may or may not approve of his policies but you should copy the way his good manners disarm the fiercest opposition.

Dress properly .

A grey and scruffy collar and a rumpled pair of bands creates a very bad impression; as though you can’t be bothered.

On the other hand a battered and balding wig is better than a new white one; It makes the wearer look more experienced.

If you are defending, make a good note of the prosecution opening speech . It is surprising how often prosecutors say something in their opening speech which turns out to be flatly contradicted when the evidence is called. When that happens, what better way to highlight the fact than by quoting from the opening speech in your closing address to the jury?

When you make a mistake, admit it straight away.

When you have taken a bad point, concede it.

When your opponent makes a good point, acknowledge it.

Do not insult witnesses.

Do not interrupt or be rude to your opponent or the judge. Not only does this make for far more pleasant atmosphere in court, it also makes you seem more serious, sensible and therefore authoritative.

Many jurors will have seen American court-room dramas, some may even have watched American court TV (for legal nerds, like`me and probably you if you have read this far, it can make for very enjoyable viewing). They may, as a result, be expecting all sorts of shouts of “Objection!” and “Strike that from the record!” and probably a judge furiously hammering his gavel as grandstanding attorneys approach the bench. To start with they will be disappointed when they see that that is not really the way we do things.

But jumping up and down and yelling “objection!” is definitely not the way to impress jurors. This does not mean you have to roll over and concede every point: if something is important then of course you will have to contest it. If you are angry for good reason, as occasionally you may be, show it. But do so politely and never lose your temper. Genuine anger will be all the more effective for being deployed sparingly and only when it is actually appropriate.

Try to keep an eye on how the jury are reacting as the trial continues. It is usually very difficult to “read” a jury, but sometimes it is obvious that a particular witness, or a piece of evidence has struck home.

Some advocates have a way of cross-examining witnesses while not looking at them at all, just at the jury. The idea is that you keep in touch with the jurors – they see your face and you see theirs. But to my mind it smacks of rudeness to the witness. You are asking him questions so you should at least pay him the courtesy of attending to his answers. If the focus of your attention appears to be on the jury it gives the impression that you are putting on a show instead of seriously listening to the evidence. To put it bluntly, it can make you look like a slimy lawyer.

Put yourself in the jury retiring room. Whose arguments are going to carry more weight: those of the slimy lawyer or those of a sensible and straightforward lawyer?

Never, ever misquote the evidence

Nothing will lower your credibility with the jury more quickly and more certainly.

It goes without saying that you will not do so deliberately. But in the heat of battle wishful thinking can sometimes play tricks with ones memory. It is easy to miss the crucial word, or worse still, to imagine that something was said when it was not. Before you take a point based on what a witness has said you must be absolutely sure that you are quoting the evidence correctly.

For this reason it is essential that, if it is possible you keep, or at least have somebody behind you keeping, a good note of the evidence. Some advocates are reluctant ever to make a note, but unless you have a remarkable memory you should not be one of them.

Many beginners might think – why bother with notes? After all everything is recorded. And so it is (including, these days, conversations between counsel while the judge is out of court, so be careful what you say, unless you want a Gordon Brown style embarrassment don’t call the judge a “stupid bigoted woman” in the court-room: wait until you reach the robing room); but for practical purposes you will not be able to access the recording except occasionally to check on some particularly important disputed evidence.

You cannot expect to note everything that is said, but with practice you should be able to get the most important bits down, except of course when you are on your feet yourself. If you have no-one behind you to take a note of your cross-examination then, if you have made some progress, as soon as you sit down make a note of at least the most important answers that you received.

Should I write my speech out?

Beginners often worry about this and opinions differ. There is no right answer. My opinion is that in general you should .

Sometimes, of course, – and it is one reason why advocacy in front of the Magistrates can be much harder than in the Crown Court – there is simply no time to prepare a closing speech. You call your client, he cuts a miserable figure in the witness box; and it’s “Yes Miss Bloggins?”. Off you have to go and do the best you can.

But usually you do have at least an hour or so to prepare the speech. It is almost always time well spent.

To deliver a closing speech extempore is not easy. There are those who can do it well, and they can make exceptionally good advocates. Their speeches are likely to be lively, spontaneous and convincing, and the lack of any writing will leave the advocate free to connect with the jury. Think, for example, of Boris Johnson’s speech at the end of the 2012 Olympics. It had all the hallmarks of being beautifully unprepared and was as a result hilarious, joyful and perfectly pitched to the occasion. But only he could have done it. Nobody else could have emulated Boris’s apparently bumbling ramblings and carried the audience with them.

And in fact even bumbling Boris may not have been as unprepared as he seemed.   If you watch the speech carefully you will see that he appears to be looking at notes of some sort as he speaks.

There are some criminal advocates who can do something similar but they are invariably individuals with their own inimitable styles. You are almost certainly not one of them.

There are plenty who think they can do it but cannot. Nothing is achieved by rambling on about the burden of proof and drifting aimlessly over a few bits of evidence. You will lose your audience. Remember that unlike a theatre audience they haven’t chosen to come and watch you, they have been forced to do so. They can’t get up and leave, nor can they usually heckle (although occasionally, and very disconcertingly, they write notes and pass them to the usher as you are speaking). Once they get bored with you their main way of showing their displeasure is to give their support to the other side. You will know if you have lost a jury’s attention. It will sit sullenly silent, not smiling, not frowning, just staring vacantly. You will have the devil’s own job to get them listening to you again.

So don’t be afraid of writing out copious notes, or even of writing the whole thing verbatim. Juries don’t mind if you use notes.

Churchill used to do it. In fact he would spend hours changing a word here, a paragraph there and would even practise out loud until he was satisfied.

Nelson Mandela’s famous speech in the Rivonia treason trial (strictly speaking it was an unsworn statement from the dock) was written out more or less verbatim, and fortunately his notes have been kept for posterity so we know that he always intended to end with this magnificent, courageous peroration:

During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.

Margaret Thatcher was writing her conference speech at 2.45 a.m. when the Brighton bomb exploded. She re-wrote it and delivered it later that day.

There have been many other great political orators and very seldom do they simply stand up and speak. Their speeches have almost invariably been painstakingly written, often over several drafts. And many, many first rate advocates routinely write and re-write their closing speeches.

Remember, though, that you are writing a speech not an essay. Keep your sentences short and your points – as far as you are able – reasonably simple. There is nothing worse than constructing an argument that might be perfectly good on paper, which is too complicated to explain to a jury. You will get lost, the jury will get lost and your client will pay dearly for your mistake.

If you have written down what you want to say you will at least have a structure and argument of sorts, and this will make it far less likely that you will lose your direction.

However, it is one thing to write it: it is another thing altogether to read it. You absolutely must not do that . Nor should you try to memorise it: you don’t have time, and even if you did a speech recited from memory is unlikely to work very well. You will sound like a ham actor delivering a soliloquy.

The point of writing the speech is rather different. You will find that the act of committing it to paper, or even to a computer screen sparks thoughts in a way that does not happen when you simply stand up and speak. Arguments present themselves, connections suddenly make sense. You can check the evidence to ensure you do not misrepresent it. If you are lucky useful turns of phrase and helpful analogies will occur to you.

All this will be of enormous assistance when you actually address the jury. If you have written it down you will know exactly where you are going and soon you will find that you seldom need to look down at your notes at all. You almost certainly won’t say exactly what you wrote down. That doesn’t matter a hoot. In fact it probably means you will sound more natural; it is easy to write something down that sounds awkward when spoken out loud. But the fact that you have written it will be a comfort. You will know that if – and it happens to almost everyone – you somehow get lost or forget where you are going you can glance down and get yourself back on track.

What do I do with my notes?

You need them to hand, but the typical court room desk or table in front of counsels’ row is far too low for most people to be able to read their notes easily when they are standing up. So you will have to prop them up with something if you are going to be able to use them. Different advocates favour variously a pile of lever arch files, an empty cardboard box or a couple of Archbolds.

Of course a lectern would be ideal but a ridiculous etiquette has it that only silks are allowed to use lecterns. As a result at many courts they are not even supplied, and at the more conservative venues you, as a mere junior, will face stern judicial disapproval if you try to use one. A notable exception is Guildford Crown Court where the legacy of a popular local barrister Frank Gillibrand has been used to purchase lecterns for every court-room. Silks are rare birds in Guildford and the lecterns are gratefully used by all.

In neighbouring Winchester a well-intentioned designer incorporated them into the structure of the 1970s court-rooms, Unfortunately, he was not a very good designer, or at least not very good at designing lecterns, and they are so awkward to use that you are almost better off without them.

What is the best time of day for my speech?

The answer is, as with so many things in advocacy not at all clear. My view is that 10.30 in the morning is usually the ideal time.

There are those who prefer last thing in the afternoon. The theory is that jurors then leave the building with your arguments ringing in their ears and reverberating around their cerebella all night long. I disagree. When jurors are tired or bored they want to go home, or start their weekends; they don’t want to listen to you. And unless they listen it does not matter how good your arguments are, they will be in vain. Most advocates would do a great deal to avoid having to address a jury on a Friday afternoon. The advantage of having the last word before a weekend is far outweighed by the fact that the jury will subconsciously resent you for delaying its start.

So the sensible advocate will generally try to ensure that his or her speech is heard first thing in the morning. Not only is that when the majority of people are most alert, it also gives you the evening before and, if necessary, the morning before to prepare your speech.

Of course whether you can speak in the morning all depends on the evidence and the flow of the trial, but there are ways of improving your chances.

You can, of course simply ask:

The traditional way is to say, perhaps disingenuously:

“ I could do my speech now, but I suspect be that it will be considerably shorter if I could have a little time to focus it on the main issues .”

There is no reason why a well prepared speech is necessarily shorter than an unprepared one. In fact the opposite is often the case, so this sounds a little insincere.

So it is better to be blunt:

“ I would like a little time to sharpen my thoughts. I wonder whether Your Honour would be prepared to rise a little early this afternoon, and perhaps make the time up by starting half an hour early tomorrow morning? ”

It would be a harsh judge who rejects such a reasonable request.

But harsh judges do exist. Such a judge will almost certainly have started sitting half an hour earlier than usual anyway. These days they are all under constant pressure to cut delay and get through their lists as fast as possible. From the point of view of the public, and indeed other litigants that may be desirable. But you do not represent the public or other litigants, you represent the defendant: you certainly do not want to cut corners if the result is that your client is even slightly more likely to go to gaol.

If you have the misfortune to appear before one of these troublesome Ministry of Justice enforcers, do not allow yourself to be bullied.

A good way of dealing with such a judge is to time your legal submissions carefully. There are few cases in which there is not some sort of discussion about the law at some point between the end of the evidence and the judge’s summing up. Indeed, the Court of Appeal strongly encourages the practice. Even if the law seems to you entirely straightforward you need to be sure that the judge thinks so too. Maybe he has missed something, maybe you have. Anyway it can get boring sitting on the bench just observing the trial. Some judges are delighted to be given a chance to play a bigger part by wrestling with a legal issue.

So you are always entitled to make legal submissions, and half past three in the afternoon, after all the evidence has been called, is a very good time to make them. By the time the jury has been sent out and a check-list of directions sorted out it should be getting on for 4 o’clock, even if there isn’t much to argue about.

Perhaps there is time for the prosecution to make a speech then, but probably not for the defence too. That, in fact, might be the perfect outcome from a defence point of view.

The Defence Closing Speech in the Crown Court

Your simple objective is to raise at least one fundamental doubt about the prosecution case.

If that is done then it will be impossible to be sure of your client’s guilt and you will be acquitted.

Broadly speaking defence arguments fall into four categories.

First, and probably most common, are those cases where the prosecution witnesses’ reliability is challenged; typically, perhaps an identification issue, or a self-defence case turning on “who threw the first punch.”

Secondly: cases where the witnesses’ honesty is challenged. Historic sex cases, for example, often leave little scope for mistake or misunderstanding: one or other party must be lying.

Thirdly: cases which depend upon disputed expert evidence . An example might be a “baby battering” case where, relying upon evidence of broken ribs, bruises and brain damage the prosecution experts assert that a baby must have been shaken, even though no-one has seen it happening.

Finally cases where the prosecution evidence is accepted but the prosecutor’s interpretation of the evidence is disputed: for example a conspiracy to supply drugs where the telephone and observation evidence is agreed, and the argument is over whether it does in fact prove a conspiracy.

Of course these categories overlap a lot. A drugs conspiracy, for example, may involve surveillance officers who are mistaken in their observations, a “supergrass” lying to save his own skin, forensic scientists making mistakes in an analysis of drug residues on bank notes and a prosecutor drawing unwarranted conclusions from the telephone evidence.

In other cases, perhaps particularly street or pub fights, it may be possible to argue that the witnesses are either unreliable or dishonest.

But identifying which type of case you are dealing with should help you to concentrate your fire where it is needed. In a sex case, for example, if the dispute is whether the incident took place at all the issue is almost certainly honesty. If so, there is no point in wasting time demonstrating that perhaps the complainant was unreliable on some of the surrounding details.

“ Members of the jury this woman couldn’t even remember if the defendant was wearing a red top or a blue top? ”

It invites, in fact demands the response:

“ So what? If that’s your best argument we’re against you. ”

How long should my speech be?

As so often, Churchill was right. “ A good speech should be like a woman’s skirt: long enough to cover the subject and short enough to create interest .”

Typically, in a 3 – 5 day trial this means 30 to 45 minutes; if the trial has lasted a couple of weeks then perhaps up to an hour.

What should I say?

The most important part of your speech is that which deals with the burden and standard of proof. You simply cannot take it for granted. And given its importance you should usually deal with it near the beginning of the speech; and at the end; and in the middle.

Don’t forget that being “sure” means the same as being “sure beyond reasonable doubt”. The latter is a well-known phrase with a solemn ring to it and I rather like it. One does not want to make too much of the analogy but the difference is rather akin to that between the poetic language of the Authorised Version and the more prosaic words of the New English Bible.

Unfortunately, once you have addressed ten or twenty juries on the subject of the standard of proof, it can get rather boring and mechanical. It is impossible every time to think up a new way of saying much the same thing. On the other hand, remember that what may bore you, just because you have said it all before, will not necessarily be boring to the jury.

I am regularly heartened by the seriousness with which juries take their task. Many will remember the superficially foolish sounding questions asked by the jury in Vicky Pryce’s first trial for perverting the course of justice. One of the questions it asked was “ what is reasonable doubt ?” The jurors were widely castigated for asking such an apparently stupid question: but plenty of our senior judges over the years have proved themselves equally baffled by it.

The answer, according to the trial judge Mr Justice Sweeney, is that a reasonable doubt is “a doubt which is reasonable.” That was a very straight answer. Other judges have attempted more detailed elucidation, usually by saying what it does not mean. It does not mean proof “beyond a shadow of a doubt ” 1 Nor does it does it mean “ a doubt for which you could give reasons…. ” 2 On the other hand it might mean “ the sort of doubt that might affect the mind of a person in dealing with matters of importance in his own affairs .” 3 So the jury’s question was not actually stupid at all; it simply revealed that the jurors were quite properly agonising over the meaning of a phrase, something that is, indeed, difficult to pin down. It is hardly surprising that they asked for help.

So, what do you say to the jury about the need to be sure before convicting?

As judges have found, it is much easier to define what being “sure” is not than to say what it is. For this reason many advocates give some such explanation as this:

“Being sure does not mean you saying to yourself: “I think he did it”, or “he probably did it”, or even “I’m almost sure he did it.” If the prosecution have made you almost sure then they have not proved the case to the high standard that the law requires. If there is a possibility that you could be mistaken then you are not sure, and the proper verdict is one of not guilty.”

To some extent the way you pitch this part of the speech depends on how strong the case against you is.

If it seems a very strong case then the standard of proof is probably one of your only points. You can afford to devote quite a lot of your speech to it.

On the other hand, if you have plenty of other good points to make they can seem a little devalued if you stress the burden of proof too much. There is always the danger that a jury will think:

“ Why is he going on about the burden of proof? It must be because all the evidence supports the prosecution and he is hasn’t got anything better to say. ”

Of course, if you haven’t got anything better to say, then so be it. But it is remarkable how in most cases good defence points do tend to emerge as the case plays out.

Generally speaking it is best to concentrate your fire on attacking the main prosecution points rather than trying to shore up your own witnesses. It is not, after all, your job to prove a case but to show that the prosecution case is unsafe.

Make sure you are realistic in what you say. If you take silly points the jury will think you are silly.

If you have followed my advice the jury will regard you as a straightforward, honest and sensible person. They rightly expect you to articulate the defence answer to the best prosecution points. So identify the best prosecution points and answer them as best you can.

All the best speeches have a central backbone, a spinal column to ensure that the speech stands up: the witnesses have motives to lie, the witnesses were drunk, the witnesses all contradict each other. The possibilities are endless but if you can build your speech around a theme of this sort it will be far easier to follow.

Of course exactly how you structure your speech is up to you. It will vary from case to case. But a good pattern is this:

State your argument early on.

Illustrate the argument with examples from the evidence.

Conclude by stating it again.

Make it easy for the jury to return the verdict you want

This is a principle that you should bear in mind throughout your speech.

Let me give an example: your client alleges a vast police conspiracy to convict him of assaulting his neighbour, after a dispute over noise from a drunken party. He may even be right; fact can indeed be stranger than fiction. Nevertheless, it is exceedingly improbable. The jury will consider it far more likely that both parties were drunk and lost their tempers. If your speech leaves the jury with the idea that a not guilty verdict depends upon the existence of a police conspiracy, your client will love the speech but will be convicted. On the other hand if you suggest a more mundane explanation in which both parties are as bad as each other so that you cannot be sure who is telling the truth, that will be much easier for the jurors to agree on. Your client may not enjoy the speech, but he will like it when he is acquitted.

But do be careful about being rude about your client in your closing speech. Sometimes it may be in his best interests to describe him in unflattering terms, but if you are going to do so it is always tactful to tell him first and if possible obtain his agreement. Once they have heard the evidence many defendants will surprisingly often be happy to agree that they are stupid, drunk or even nasty individuals. The jury do not have to like the defendant to acquit him and if he is thoroughly unlikeable then it is better to face the fact rather than deny it and look like an idiot.   Tell the jury that the fact that he’s nasty does not mean that the evidence proves his guilt.

Generally speaking the points that you must get over to the jury are:

The presumption of innocence means that the defendant is not guilty. You should find him guilty only if the prosecution evidence is so overwhelming that it allows of no other explanation.

The standard of proof is such that a “not guilty” verdict does not mean that the complainant is lying. You may in fact be “almost sure” that she is telling the truth, but that would still require a verdict of not guilty. On the other hand in most cases a “guilty” verdict cannot be returned unless you are sure that the defendant was lying.

It is much easier for a jury to accept that a witness is mistaken than that he is deliberately lying. Don’t allege that a witness is dishonest if his unreliability is equally explicable by an honest mistake.

A similar principle may well apply to the defendant’s evidence as well, but in reverse. Unless you are sure that he is lying, he is not guilty. Only if you are sure that he is lying must you find him guilty.

Cases can be laughed out of court. But it takes the right case and a very special advocate to achieve that. It also helps to have an interfering judge or a galumphing nincompoop for an opponent. Such a happy concatenation of circumstances comes together almost as rarely as a total solar eclipse.

A little gentle teasing of your opponent can be fine, but be careful you do not appear as a sort of David Cameron style smoothie-chops, mocking a less polished colleague. This is of course a special danger for those – and they do exist in the legal profession – who already have a tendency towards smoothie-chops snootiness.

And there are some types of cases in which humour should never, or hardly ever, be attempted. Homicides, most sex cases and serious assaults need to be taken seriously and to be seen to be taken seriously. As a rule, if someone cracks jokes during such a trial no-one laughs and the joker looks like a fool. 

This mistake was made in his opening address by Don West, defense attorney for George Zimmerman the Florida Neighbourhood Watch representative on trial for shooting dead Trayvon Martin, a harmless teenager walking through his gated community.  The case excited huge controversy.  As reported by Richard Luscombe in The Guardian

“West began his opening statement with a joke, poking fun at the two weeks of jury selection that delved deeply into what prospective panel members knew of the case. “Knock, knock,” he said. “Who’s there? George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? Good, you’re on the jury.”

There was little reaction in the courtroom and West acknowledged that his joke had fallen flat.”

Nevertheless, West went on to win the case but it was in spite of, not because of his sense of humour.

On the other hand in less serious or emotive cases humour can be a very powerful weapon. No-one can teach you to be funny, least of all me, but if you can make the jury laugh with you, they will often happily do most of what you ask. If the case allows it then you should try to make the jury at least smile once or twice. It won’t win you the case on its own but it will help.

Most comedians will tell you their best jokes are often the result of careful preparation: this is just as true for jokes in your closing speech.

Seriousness

It is, of course, much easier to be serious than to be funny, and fortunately juries appreciate a proper seriousness too. There is much to be said for emphasising the importance of the jury’s role and reminding them of how seriously they should take their task. Although one reads the occasional horror story about how a jury has arrived at a verdict through a ouija-board and so on, my experience is that most do seem to approach their solemn task with great care.

Sometimes you will need to take a jury through a complex argument. Don’t worry, they will follow it as long as they are listening. Tell them it is important, tell them that they need to concentrate and do not patronise them. They will listen.

It is a serious issue but you are not allowed to comment on what punishment may be meted out on the defendant if he is convicted.

1 Miller v. Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All E.R. 372

2 R v. Stafford & Luvaglio 53 Cr.App.R. 1

3 Walters v. R. [1969] 2 A.C. 26

Share this:

17 thoughts on “the beginner’s guide to the closing speech”.

I am Law school beginner but after reading these hints i really feel like i have already have an advantage. Very well compiled details which were easy to understand and a great network of ‘legal words’ were used which i had the dictionary interpret for me. So i also added quiet a few extra words into my poor vocabulary. Well Done Matthew!

Thanks Ozy. Best of luck when you finally get to appear in court. You’ll find it terrifying, but the first time you do a good cross-examination or closing speech you’ll be hooked. Nothing like it.

Amazing! So very grateful for this article.

I cⲟuld not resist commenting. Exceptionally well written!

• Pingback: Hannelore Herter

I found this very interesting. As a young man, I was a law student, but hearing loss led me to switch to journalism and photography. That’s how I earned my living – freelance. In middle age, I became a Town Councillor and, in my village, became a ‘one man citizens advice bureaux.’ I took on several benefit appeal tribunals and then several cases in the small claims track of the County Court. Like all Advocates, I won some and lost some. I found the District Judges to be very kind and considerate. As far as my CAB was concerned, nothing fazed me. I take The Times and enjoy the law reports. My only case in the Magistrates concerned a mother of three children who could not afford to renew the TV licence. Instead of unplugging the thing and putting it in a cupboard out of the way, she foolishly allowed her brood and their pals to continue watching it. The licence people came round, peered in the window and knocked. Caught. In the MC she was fined £400 + £120 costs. Allowed to pay at £20 a week, but after a few months the payments lapsed. She received a nasty letter from the Clerk to the Justices warning her that she faced imprisonment the next day at court. She came to me on the Monday night in tears. She had been advised by a friend to concoct a ‘cock and bull’ story about an uncle being I’ll, etc. No, I said, and got my typewriter out. She had a £20 to take to court the next morning and I wrote her a submission. I mentioned the ‘cock and bull ‘ advice and wrote that she was ignoring this and had come to court to say how very sorry she was for not realising the seriousness of her situation. At a certain point in her (read) submission, I had told her to raise her arm with the £20 note. They were very kind. She was warned of the consequences of further default and allowed to resume paying £20 weekly provided she paid her £20 note into the cash office downstairs after the hearing was over. There was no separate penalty and no costs. I was really pleased.

An excellent story. You should have been a barrister anyway. There are some deaf barristers I believe, and plenty of hard of hearing judges who tell witnesses to speak up.

I am a law student and after reading this helpful legal information, I find it really helpful for me as a future lawyer.

Really good just needed some help with a class project

I have been on my feet for 8 years and I found this piece both extremely helpful and enlightening. Thank you so much. I look forward to incorporating its elements in my next closing speech (this Tuesday coming)

• Pingback: Meet the Team - David Osborne

I’m doing some research for a novel and would ask in what order final summations are presented, would the plaintiff’s or accused counsel go first. Assuming a criminal case. If you can help I would be most grateful. Steve.

In a criminal case the order is normally as follows:

Prosecution opening speech Prosecution evidence Defence opening speech (only if defence are calling some evidence other than defendant & often not done anyway) Defence evidence Prosecution closing speech Defence closing speech Judge’s summing up.

The procedure varies a bit in the Magistrates Court, and if the defendant is not legally represented, when the prosecution don’t get a closing speech.

Hi! just wanted to drop by with a huge thank you for this wonderful blog. I have a mooting oral assessment quite soon and this has made me think not only of some new enlightening tips (that have truly changed my thinking and attitude to various points) but for the future as well, thank you for sharing your experience!

Hope you are staying safe and well.

Thanks Alejandra, I’m not sure if the blog will be much help in a moot, but do your research, be polite and try to answer not evade the judge’s questions and you should do well. Good luck!

Steven Oldfield Do you feel that a Prosecutor who refuses to repeat his lies by declining a closing speech and a Judge, who then includes the Prosecution speech within his summation, is something the Appeal Court should be concerned about when the Judge also falsifies the Trial Transcripts to conceal what constituted a corrupt Trial having taken place?

Without knowing all the details I wouldn’t like to comment.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Opening Speech

Whether you are opening for a small gathering such as minor events or a big one like global conferences, public speaking always gives people stage fright. If you are nervous, you have all the reasons to feel that way. You must already know it since you are here, but one helpful tip to combat nervousness is preparation. That said, turn on your gears and practice your speech writing skills as you compose your opening speech. 

10+ Opening Speech Examples

1. general opening speech.

Size: 176 KB

2. Energy Agency Opening Speech

Size: 145 KB

3. Global Citizenship Opening Speech

Size: 177 KB

4. Global Conference Opening Speech

Size: 14 KB

5. Opening Speech Template

Size: 78 KB

6. Opening Speech for Workshop

Size: 49 KB

7. Opening Speech Format

Size: 64 KB

8. Opening Speech on Cultural Management

Size: 33 KB

9. Opening Speech by the Honorable Minister

Size: 35 KB

10. Opening Speech in PDF

Size: 104 KB

11. Chairman’s Opening Speech

Size: 216 KB

What Is an Opening Speech?

An opening speech is a talk that people give to welcome guests and give a brief overview of what will happen in an event. People give this type of speech during formal and informal gatherings. Just as the name states, the purpose of an opening speech is to open programs. 

How to Compose an Impressive Opening Speech

Giving an opening statement means giving the people something to measure for their first impression. When you get on that stage and give your speech, you are doing the first performance of the event itinerary . It is your responsibility to set the vibe for the entirety of the gathering. That said, you should ensure to give a grand opening speech. 

1. Start With a Compelling Introduction

The first words that come out of your mouth when you hold the microphone are a defining factor in the quality of your speech. In writing this segment, ensure to incorporate a hook. It should be effective enough to captivate and retain the attention of your audience throughout your whole speech. One method that will help you to devise your introduction is by conducting an audience analysis . Doing this will give you an idea of how to catch the attention of your listeners. 

2. Acknowledge The Guests

Of course, one of the purposes of giving an opening speech at every event is to welcome the guests. Convey how thankful the organizers are for their acceptance of the event invitation . Also, do not forget to thank them for sparing time for the program. If there are important people on your attendance list , you should show them your appreciation by giving them a special mention. 

3. State the Purpose of the Event

The next step is to write the part where you explain the reason for holding the event. To make things interesting, you can give a very brief history or a fascinating fact about the program. Ensure to compose this segment properly. This part is what will give the audience an idea of what to expect for the ceremony.

4. Conclude Your Speech

In giving a welcome speech for guests , you should not consume too much of the people’s time. That said, after the previous steps, you should now start coming up with a conclusion. In concluding your speech, you should once again thank the guests. After that, you should introduce the next speaker or performer. 

What makes a good opening speech?

Good speech openings are those that can rouse the emotions of the audience. Despite that, you should tailor your introduction based on the formality of the gathering you are attending. For example, giving an opening speech for an event should be something that would brighten the atmosphere. On the other hand, when giving a welcome speech for conference , you should try a more formal approach and include essential meeting details.

How do you give a self-introduction speech?

Aside from mentioning your name, there are other things you should include in your self-introduction speech . Before deciding what details to add to what you will say, you should first consider your audience and the formality of the setting. Despite that, one universal tip that is appropriate for multiple circumstances is to give a brief background of yourself and your accomplishments.

What are essential things to remember when giving a speech?

In giving a speech, it is always advisable to compose a speech outline and practice what you will say. Another necessary thing that you should consider is how you will establish a connection with your listeners. One way to do this is by maintaining eye contact with your audience. Also, during your speech, you should use appropriate hand gestures.

Giving opening speeches are a heavy responsibility. Knowing that you would be the first person to go up the podium can make a person’s heartbeat twice as fast as it usually would. That said, you should prepare ahead and secure to write a killer opening speech. That way, you can walk towards the mic with confident steps.

Opening Speech Generator

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

Create an opening speech for a community event

Help me write an opening speech for an art exhibition

How to write a MUN Opening Speech

With Examples

Writing an opening speech in MUN can be a bit challenging.

Common questions we get from delegates before going to a conference. “What should I say in my opening speech?” “Should I read out my Positions Paper?” “How do I take all the research I did  and fit it into a short opening speech?”

Before you start working on your MUN opening speech, you should know the topic, done some research, and preferably already have written a position paper . 

A MUN opening speech should cover the following:

• Problem The specific problem you want to solve – 1 line.
• Clash Solution – What you want to do about the issue – 1 line.
• Information Back up your views on the issue and solutions with facts from research . – 2 lines
• Action Solution Details – The step by step how to solve the issue. – 3 + lines

What not to do:

Do not repeat the problem . Everyone knows what it is. Repeating the problem is a great way to waste precious speech time. Your first sentence should be what you want to do. That is what the other delegates are more interested in.

Your first sentence should be a clear clash. To impact the committee it is not enough to bring vague ideas. There needs to be engagement between delegates and your ideas need to be discussed by others.

You know your idea is important when countries that oppose your idea fight against it while countries who are on your side support it. Other delegates’ ideas clashing with yours is what gives them both life and makes them interesting and relevant.

For this reason, a good MUN opening speech needs to have:

Information

Clash is your solution in one specific sentence. The Clash is framed as a two-sided solution which the other side can object to. Information is properly used facts. Call to Action is the policy you want to see implemented. The guide below will explain how the CIA formula works and how to use it to create your influential, informative, and rhetorically sound opening speech. Let’s get to it!

• Intro to CIA
• Opening Speech Structure
• Topic Types
• Opening Speech Examples

Introducing CIA

CIA is the foundation for any MUN opening speech. A strong CIA speech, will convey a clear and consistent message to your fellow delegates that you know what you are talking about and have a plan. Clear communication is the key to  successful MUNing in your committee. Missing your C lash, I nformation or A ction can result in confusion about where you stand on the matter and your outlook on how to solve the issue at hand. 

Just Remember CIA:

I nformation

C la sh – What you want to do in one specific sentence. .

I nformation – Relevant facts. numbers, that support your speech. Information can also be facts about your country that justify your position.

Call to A ction – How you will carry out the one line “what” you states in the Clash.

Before we explain how each part of CIA works, it is vital to understand clashing with at least a few other delegates is an important litmus test for how relevant your talking points are.

Why 100% Agreement = Irrelevance

A Model United Nations opening speech should present a problem, as you perceive said problem, and give one or more practical policy proposals on how you propose to solve it. However, if everyone agrees with you, no one will talk about your ideas.

When no one talks about your ideas, they will fade from the discussion. This is why your framing of the problem needs to clash with the world view of other delegates. The debate between you and those who oppose your ideas will keep both ideas alive. Hours later, if you find a compromise with the other side, you will get credit for making the biggest difference. If you cannot find a compromise, you get credit for sticking to your principles. In both cases, if your clash is central to what takes place in the committee, you will get the credit for shaping the discussion and bringing the ideas that led the direction the committee took.

This is why it is not enough to say what is correct, or even important. It needs to arouse some kind of response to remain relevant and important. Ideally, the way you frame the debate will be so relevant and well presented that the committee clashes along the lines you set and the rich and relevant discussion takes up a central place in the committee, or at least is relevant to enough delegates to keep it going as a secondary discussion. For this reason, the first part of your MUN opening speech is called a Clash.

What you want to do.

Clash definition: A confrontation of solutions.

We cannot censor people who incite violence in a country with freedom of speech. Vs We must censor people to ensure physical safety from those who successfully incite violence.

You cannot censor and not censor at the same time and there you have a strong clash.

For something to be a clash, delegates from your committee need to be on either side of it. If there are no two sides, the committee won’t debate it. Instead, your ideas will either unanimously go straight to the unimportant clause section of the resolution or fall entirely out of discussion. Either way, it will not be central to determining the direction the committee goes.

Examples of Clash:

Revoking asylum status for anyone who does not agree to get vaccinated at the border.

Advocating for megacities to have their own independent legal system.

The United Nations should fund water filtration in countries that suffer volcanic eruptions.

In all of these examples, there is a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question. The answer to these questions will be the main one to divide the committee room.  

An idea that everyone agrees on is Off Clash . Off Clash statements (Like the Ebola virus is bad or tornados are dangerous) are a waste of precious speech time that could be further used to develop your Clash or Call to Action. (More on Clash and Off Clash in the expanded explanation below)

Which clash should you choose?

  Some topics have many possible clashes. In those cases, you should choose the one you feel will be most relevant to the discussion.

Committee : World Health Organization

Topic: Combating the Zika Virus

Clash 1: Increase the number of doctors sent to Peru to treat Zika.

Clash 2: Remove patent restrictions to let countries locally develop medicines to counter Zika.

Clash 3: Suggest countries around the world teach children about the world’s top deadliest diseases.

 The general concept of combating Zika is an Off Clash topic. No one will say the Zika virus is a good thing. To find the Clash you need to go one level deeper and decide what type of discussion will best serve our country’s interests.

It is clear that Clash 3 will save the least leaves and bring the least immediate benefit. It will also likely get little or no discussion time.

When choosing between Clash 1 and Clash 2, Paraguay would open for Clash 2, as creating generic medicines would be cheaper not only for fighting Zika but could also make medical treatment cheaper across the board. This idea would also be of interest to Angola, who faces similar constraints on creating generic medicines, even though they do not have the Zika virus. As a rule of thumb, it is better to choose a clash that is not only relevant to your country but many others can also agree with it.

Information = Hard facts that support your case

A strong MUN speech needs to have relevant facts and numbers that support parts of your speech.

Without information, your fellow delegates can only rely on your word, which might not give enough credibility to what you have to say. Numbers, names, dates and hard facts show what we are saying exists in the real world and is not an opinion. Numbers are the best form of information to use and the hardest to argue with.

No “Information”

The coral reefs are very important. Huge numbers of people who live near a reef. Corals also protect the shoreline of many countries. Also, many countries, like the US, and make a lot of money from tourism.

With “Information”

The coral reefs are very important. 962 million people (Roughly an eighth of the world’s population) lives within 60 miles of a reef. Additionally, corals protect 100,000 miles of shoreline in over 100 countries from being batters by the ocean’s force. The coral reefs also generating billions of dollars in tourism revenue. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service estimates the annual commercial value of U.S. fisheries from coral reefs to be over $100 million.

Which sounds smarter?

Information does not exist in a vacuum. There is no such thing as facts for facts sake. 

Information in a CIA speech should always do one of the following:

• Supports why your Clash is the most relevant
• Shows why your Call to Action is the most important
• Shows why your country has the position it does
• Disproves information brought by another delegate

Information in follow up speeches usually moves between these four. In earlier speeches the “I” focuses more on your own world-building and less on countering other countries. However, MUN simulation has a lot going on and the Information should be used, as deemed appropriate, on a case by case basis.

Call to Action (CtA) is a statement designed to give instructions for an immediate response.

In MUN, your CtA is the practical policy to solve the issue you set up in your clash.

Without a clear CtA other delegates will not know what to do with the Clash and Information you presented. Worse, they can use what you set up in your speech to justify other CtA’s.

A Call to Action needs to be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time Bound (SMART). 

Your CtA needs to be specific as to:

• Where you will get funding from
• Which organizations will be involved
• What you will send

Clash: Let’s send teachers to the refugee camps in Ethiopia.

CtA : Hiring 300 teachers who specialize in teaching English and Math, to United Nations run high schools at the 3 refugee camps in the Tigray region in Ethiopia.

We can’t send “teachers” as we don’t know what types how many, where to send them or what they are going to do. However, when we look at the CtA, we can guestimate the cost of 300 teachers who specialize in English and Math and now know where to send them.

A good Call to Action explains the problem, the solution and what it’s going to do.

Specific actionable policy ideas will allow you to direct the discussion, and later take credit for the ideas when everyone else has the same general stance (ex. “humanitarian aid”).

Structure of an opening speech

The opening speeches at most MUN conferences are 60 seconds. 

However, you should ask your conference team if you are unsure about the opening speech times since this could differ. Take into considerations, a delegate could motion to change the opening speeckers time during the course of the conference or a chair could change the time due to other unforeseen reasons …. So  even if the opening speech is as short as 30 seconds, or as long as two minutes, the structure remains the same.

• Information – Sprinkled throughout

Call to Action

Clash breaks into two parts, clashline and explanation.

How to start an MUN opening speech

A good MUN opening speech goes straight to the point. The longer you take the more of a risk you run that they’ll find someone else to focus on like passing a note, writing an opening speech of their own, chatting to the delegate next to them, etc. Your strong opener is your Clashline.

Clashline – Your first few lines. It tells the listener what clash you want to focus on. Shouldn’t be more than 10 seconds.

Examples of Clashlines:

Syrian refugees who spent over three years in refugee camps should get work visas Countries should be responsible for their own epidemics The UN should send food aid to the people of North Korea

Clash explanation – Your next few seconds should explain why what you are speaking about is important by showing why your clash is the correct one.

Examples of Explanation: Clashline: “The UN should send unconditional food aid to the people of North Korea.” Explanation: “The leadership is stable and not looking to change any time soon. Life will continue the same for the elites as the people are starving. This is why the food should be sent now.”

This is a good example of getting straight to the point. Within four sentences we have a clear idea that human rights come second to the leadership of the DPRK. This clarity of Clashline and Explanation can be used in any MUN committee from the General Assembly, ECOSOC, DISEC, SOCHUM and WHO to the Security Council and even a crisis committee.

Information Facts in your speech always have a purpose. That purpose is almost always one of the following: – Show why your Clash is the most relevant – Show why your Call to Action will make the biggest difference – Explain why your country has the position it does – Disprove information brought by another delegate

Use of information to strengthen a speech

Clash: The UN should send unconditional food aid to the people of North Korea. Kim Jong Un is 35 years old. He’s not going anywhere anytime soon. At the same time, 10.5 million people, which is 41% of the total population, are undernourished. Life will continue the same for the elites as the people are starving.

You should describe your policy / solution halfway through your speech at the latest. This is because you need time to elaborate on your solution. No idea is clear in one sentence. You will need time to explain why it is important and why it is going to work.

Use of Call to Action

The United Nations should send 240 million tons of food aid to the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea. This food should be sent over two years. 30 million should be sent every three months as long as Kim Jong Un abides by the following.

• Regular scheduled UN inspections every six months.
• Surprise inspections are accommodated.

This text can be turned into clauses for a draft resolution. The main idea is clear.

Closing your Opening Speech

After your Call to Action, a summary sentence can be a nice way to close your speech.

However, this should not come at the expense of your content or important details of your Call to Action. Style should never trump substance.

What if you have extra time in my opening speech?

If you find yourself with extra time in your opening speech, and you used the CIA format in your speech.

Do the following:

• Elaborate on additional points you didn’t get enough time to introduce.
• Set up ideas that you can follow up in your next speech.
• Reinforce your main points.
• End your speech early if you really have nothing to add.

It should be rare to have extra time in your opening speech if you planned wisely, when you happen to find yourself with extra time use it strategically.

Types of MUN Topics

How it impacts your opening speech.

There are three types of MUN topics, Open, Semi-Open and Closed.

Types of MUN Topics:

Open Open topics are very broad and should be significantly narrowed to create the clash in an opening speech.

Example – Combatting the Slave Trade

This topic is very broad and could be about anything that has to do with slavery in the world today.  What does slave trade mean? It could be child slavery, forced labor or the sex trade. It could be placed in the developed world or developing world. It could be about countries of origin, transit countries or destinations. To be debatable the opening speech needs to move from the topic to something specific to set the Clash.

Semi-Open Semi-Open topics are similar to open topics and should be narrowed and focused. They have more direction than open topics but you are still required to choose from a few directions to set the clash.

Example – The right to the internet of children in developing countries

There is an understanding of what types of countries and populations that we’re focusing on but there is still work needed to set a Clash. What ages are the children? Who is providing the internet, government, the UN or an NGO? What about the devices to use the internet?

Closed topics have a clear main clash. Most, or all, of the countries in the committee will fall onto one side or the other. For closed topics, countries without a clear point of view still need to pick a side before they can begin discussing the issue.

Example – Sending aid to the people of North Korea.

While you still need to decide what types of aid, how much and what conditions, the question of “should we send aid” is a yes or no question that each country should have an opinion on and which strongly influences their starting point in the discussion.

You can learn more about the three types of MUN topics here.

Below are MUN opening speech samples for an open and closed topic.

MUN Opening Speech Examples

The following MUN speech examples show both good and bad opening speeches. After the speech, there will be a breakdown according to CIA and an analysis of the speech evaluating what worked, what didn’t and why.

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

MUN Opening Speech Example – Open Topic

Committee: World Food Program

Topic: Eradicating Global Hunger

Country: Norway

Honorable chair distinguished delegates,

The first step to stopping starvation is improving access to clean water, critical for food growth. Half of the 800 million people without access to clean water live in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Kingdom of Norway believes that the WFP’s efforts should focus on community-oriented aid to promote self-sufficient living. Norway thinks self-operated water harvesting devices are a good way to do this. The University of Akron in Ohio developed a water harvester that produces 10 gallons of drinking water per hour from thin air. The UN should purchase, and distribute, water harvesters to the countries most in need such as Niger, Burundi and Mozambique. For the UN to ensure long term success, the WFP should transfer harvesters and not funds to the countries in need.

The Breakdown

The first step to stopping starvation is improving access to clean water , critical for food growth. Half of the 800 million people without access to clean water live in Sub-Saharan Africa . The Kingdom of Norway believes that the WFP’s efforts should focus on community-oriented aid to promote self-sufficient living. Norway thinks self-operated water harvesting devices are a good way to do this. The University of Akron in Ohio developed a water harvester that produces 10 gallons of drinking water per hour from thin air . The UN should purchase, and distribute, water harvesters to the countries most in need such as  Niger, Burundi and Mozambique . For the UN to ensure long term success, the WFP should transfer harvesters and not funds to the countries in need.

Clash – Improving access to clean water is how we tackle global hunger.

When asked in a question, “Does stopping starvation means providing access to clean water as the first priority?” Some countries will agree and some will not.

Information – 400 million people don’t have access to water in sub-Saharan Africa. (Numbers) Water harvester in the University of Akron produced 10 gallons of water per hour. (Numbers and names) Niger, Burundi and Mozambique are countries that could use this. (Names)

Call to Action – The UN should replace cash with water harvesters and give them directly to the people in need.

This Call to Action has two parts. In a follow-up speech, Norway can say that they give $975 million in aid to sub-Saharan countries. This can support why they want to make sure their investment is spent correctly. Also, even if the committee doesn’t go for water harvesters, or even water, the idea of not sending cash to the countries in need can still be central to the discussion.

Speech Analysis

Norway is hedging her bets and, while going in strong, leaves room to maneuver. The subtext of her case is countries should use whatever they are given responsibly and handing cash to governments is not an effective means. As long as whatever policy is chosen is done more responsibly (by what Norway considers responsible) she can still have a strong impact on the committee even if none of her policies go through.

MUN Opening Speech Example – Closed topic

Committee: International Organization for Migration (IOM)

Topic: Changing visa policy to combat illegal migration

Country: United Kingdom

Honorable chair distinguished delegates, 

The United Kingdom is strongly against making visa access easier. While the death of the 39 Chinese found inside a refrigerated lorry from Bulgaria on October 23rd, 2019 is regrettable, our only option is informing potential migrants of the danger to themselves.

Illegal migration into Britain is around 650,000—give or take a couple hundred thousand. Many of these enter countries on tourist visas and then stay. Changing the laws will only give smugglers more opportunities.

Britain proposes the UN create translated online platforms to apply for legal visas, while also showing the dangers of illegal migration. The UN should invest in the proliferation, so this information reaches the right people. The smugglers who get past our x-ray machines, canine units, heartbeat monitors and carbon-dioxide sniffers are extremely resourceful. If we loosen visa laws, they will adapt and continue to take money from the poor but now with the white hats, we handed to them.

Honorable chair distinguished delegates,  The United Kingdom is strongly against making visa access easier . While the death of the 39 Chinese found inside a refrigerated lorry from Bulgaria on October 23rd, 2019 is regrettable, our only option is informing potential migrants of the danger to themselves . Illegal migration into Britain is around 650,000 —give or take a couple hundred thousand. Many of these enter countries on tourist visas and then stay . Changing the laws will only give smugglers more opportunities.

Britain proposes the UN create translated online platforms to apply for legal visas, while also showing the dangers of illegal migration . The UN should invest in the proliferation , so this information reaches the right people. The smugglers who get past our x-ray machines, canine units, heartbeat monitors and carbon-dioxide sniffers are extremely resourceful. If we loosen visa laws, they will adapt and continue to taking money from the poor but now with the white hats, we handed to them.

Clash – Do not change the visa laws. Like at all.

Information – 39 victims inside a lorry from Bulgaria (numbers and names), Illegal migration into Britain + – 650,000 (number), x-ray machines, canine units, heartbeat monitors and carbon-dioxide sniffers (specific names of detection methods.)

Call to Action – UN online platform in local languages explaining the visa process and warning of dangers. UN should create a mechanism to make sure the platform reaches relevant people. (How to reach people needs elaboration in later speeches) 

This speech starts with the UK clearly stating that they are against changing visa status, which shows which side of the main clash he is on. He brings information which he knows those who want to change visa status to save lives will bring up and says, despite that, he is against.

The UK brings many new stakeholders into the discussion such as the resourceful smugglers and how most illegal migrants come with tourist visas and stay.

As draft resolutions are practical policies, it isn’t enough to be against changing visas. The UK also needs to propose something proactive. The online resource is a good policy proposal in that it gives the IOM sometimes to advocate for which does not require a change in visa law. All countries that don’t want to change their immigration policy can get behind this idea that does not really change anything. It’s a position that many countries could back and might even get a majority. By putting the focus on resourceful smugglers, the UK is moving away from the danger to human life by saying the real enemy is the smugglers, who will be empowered by changing visa law.

Examples of Bad MUN Opening Speeches

Example bad opening speech - #1.

Committee : ECOSOC

Country : Egypt

TOPIC :  Rebuilding the Middle East

We, the Arab Republic of Egypt believe that we should help rebuild the Middle East and specifically Syria .

While the 580,000 casualties of the civil war in Syria are extremely regrettable, the real victims are the people trying to stay alive in the conflict zone that is modern Syria. More than 6.2 million people are displaced . 13.1 million are still in need of humanitarian assistance . The estimated unemployment rate stands at 54 percent . Also, 83.5 percent of the 19,454,263 Syrians live below the poverty line . Cities have been engulfed in crime, police stations closed down and the overall police personal dropped from 100,000 officers to 20,000 . Rates of theft increased, with criminals looting houses and stores. To fix this problem we need to rebuild the Middle East by rebuilding Syria!

Clash – Rebuilding the Middle East = Rebuilding Syria 

Information – A lot of facts about how difficult life is in Syria.

Call to Action – There is none.

This speech starts with the clash going half way. It focuses the rebuilding efforts on Syria. This excludes Iraq, and other candidate states, but is also a fairly predictable option which could be expected from a majority of delegates (at least if the committee takes place late 2019).

After the place setting in Syria, the speech brings many facts. This shows research but a clear lack of focus. The facts shows life in Syria is difficult, but the knowledge that life is difficult for Syrians is something everyone in the committee probably knows. The information is scattered between those who need aid, those who are unemployed and the information about dropping police forces. There is no Call to Action to make use of the data so the listener is left with the conclusion that life in Syria is hard, which they knew before the committee began.

Furthermore, the information in this speech can be used to support almost any Call to Action, from sending emergency humanitarian aid workers throughout the country to giving 100% support to Bashar Assad to reassert full control. This is the danger in giving a speech with a sort of Clash, Information and no Call to Action. Anyone can use your facts to support their own agenda.

Example Bad Opening Speech #2

Country : Ireland

The Republic of Ireland declares that we need to rebuild the Middle East ! Ireland believes that we should take action against the war and apply sanctions against the rebel terrorists in Syria and even resort to military action if necessary to stop the war. Syria is in such a poor condition because of the west’s irresponsible behavior regarding the war. The millions who died and fled are directly our fault. This is the same level of neglect seen after the Vietnam war in 1975 , when we left over 2 million as the casualty count and fled to lick our wounds and rebuild ourselves. Once the war is over, we should send financial aid to rebuild Syria again and prevent any future wars from happening. 

Clash – Unclear. 1) Rebuild the Middle East (off clash), 2) Apply Sanctions against rebel terrorists in Syria, 3) Resort to military action.

Information – Vietnam war ended in 1975. Casualty count of over 2 million.

Call to Action – Send financial aid.

This speech is a mess of mixed messages. The Clashline is Off Clash, as there likely isn’t a country who would say they do not support the idea of rebuilding the Middle East (whatever that means). We then hear “we should apply sanctions against the terrorists in Syria” with no further explanation of how this will work or who they are. We then hear “resort to military action to stop the war” with no explanation about who we are taking action against. It could be the undefined terrorists mentioned before. It could be the Syrian army. It could be someone else.

The information in this speech is about the Vietnam war. The example is extremely dated, and the numbers undefined and possibly incorrect. However, the larger issue with the information is that it doesn’t serve a purpose. The west abandoning the Middle East is never even hinted at in the beginning of the clash. It also has nothing to do with the one liner Call to Action that comes later.

The Call to Action, if we can even call it that, has nothing to do with any previous part of the speech. If anything, sending aid is the opposite of sanctions and war, both of which have nothing to do with the American withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975.

Overall, this is a confusing speech where each part sends a different message from the other parts. This speech is very open to highjacking by another delegate who will say that this speech supports their ideas. Another option is this speech is ignored. What is clear is the direction the committee takes will likely not be set by this speech.

Example Bad Opening Speech - #3

Committee : ECOFIN

Country : Peru

Topic : Responsible Usage of Arctic Resources

Peru believes that every Arctic country has the sovereignty to use their resources .

However, because of the climate changes, we should create a special committee that will discuss this subject and find ways to decrease the ecological damage. The Arctic region contains major reserves of uranium, copper, tungsten, gold, diamonds and most importantly gas and oil . In addition, it’s one of the largest freshwater reservoirs in the world. Climate changes and release of contaminants in the Arctic have potential to affect European and global weather patterns. The Arctic is particularly sensitive to the effects of global warming, and icebergs are melting at a rapid rate. Scientists fear that it will cause a significant rise in sea levels around the world, and that in the 20th of the 21 century there will be no ice zone at all during the summer.

Clash – Countries can use resources within their territory.

Information – Names of resources in the arctic and some more scattered data.

Call to Action – Create a special committee.

This speech starts with a pretty clear Clash, that countries who have access to the arctic can use their resources as they please. The next line contradicts the first and presents either an alternative Clash or a Call to Action in the form of creating a “special committee” to find ways to decrease egonolical damage (first time this is mentioned).  The rest of the speech is an array of information that doesn’t really point at anything. Some of it counts as Information in the form of new facts but most of what is said doesn’t really serve a purpose. At the end of the speech we are left wondering what was the point. From the third sentence the speech rambles on with no connection to the Clash or Call to Action which end up forgotten by the end of the speech..

Example Bad Opening Speech - #4

Country : Cuba

The Arctic states are completed and integrated by customary international sea law and several treaties. The Arctic includes areas of the national sovereignty. Cuba fully respects these sovereign rights and will be ready to play their role to confront global challenges with its scientific and technological expertise and leading companies to contribute to a sustainable Arctic development while respecting the ecosystem and indigenous people.

In this frame, Cuba expects the extending bilateral and multilateral cooperation in the Arctic, in the framework of international law to create a committee to cooperate in the following subjects : wider access of geo- strategic interest , scientific cooperation on climate change and environmental protection , economic expertise in the use of mineral resources , cooperation on human lives in extreme climate conditions .

Clash – None.

Information – None.

Call to Action – Create a committee to do basically everything.

This speech opening with what is clearly not a clashline. Cuba then says they “fully respect sovereign rights” and continue with a run on sentence (specifically how they will “ play their role to confront global challenges” using “scientific and technological expertise and leading companies” to “contribute to a sustainable Arctic development” while “respecting the ecosystem and indigenous people.”)

This delegate’s opening speech, unknowingly, tries to cover everything. The same can be seen in their call to action where the committee is created to do 5 separate things, which could each be an entire Call to Action in its own right.

This speech is hard to follow and tries to commit to so many different things. As a result, almost any other delegate can say that Cuba supports them. There are buzzwords like terms that have no clear link between them such as “sustainable Arctic development”,  “ecosystem”, “indigenous people” and more. Overall, it is a difficult speech to follow where the listener is left without a clear idea of what the delegate wants, unless if what they want is absolutely everything.

Country : Dominican Republic

The Dominican Republic says we have to take care of the arctic . It is important because there are many resources there which the world will be sad to lose. It also has endangered species.

We have not been careful with the arctic. Countries could also go to war over it. We need to be responsible. This means setting up mechanisms to protect the environment. We should also create treaties to protect nature and the natural resources there.

We owe it to our children and their children to take care of the arctic . We will have failed them if they ask us “why were you not responsible”. We need to be able to have an answer. As ECOFIN, we need to make sure the United Nations ensures that its member states use the arctic responsibly or do not use it at all. If we want an arctic when we are older we need to protect it today!

Clash – The clash in this speech is off clash.

Information – There are zero facts in this speech.

Call to Action – “take care of the arctic” which could mean anything.

This speech could have been written by someone who only read the name of the topic. Everything in it is general. No fact is present and no original idea is presented.

The only merit of this speech is that it can be read dramatically but even then there is nothing to remember except for lines like “we owe it to our children and their children to take care of the arctic.” At best, this speech shows eloquence and a knack for drama. What it does not do is set or drive debate in any way. Coming away from this you can assume no research was done and there is possibly a lack of understanding of how a MUN works.

Adapting Your Opening Speech in Real Time 

At this point, you should be able to understand the different parts of a MUN opening speech and how they work together. Inspired by the examples and opening speech analysis, the patterns and characteristics of a good MUN opening speech should be clear. The final part of the opening speech process is the modifications you will sometimes need to do to adapt your speech to the previous speeches that came before yours.

MUN RULE: Always ready to adapt in real-time. This rule applies to your opening speech.

Just because it’s your first speech , doesn’t mean it’s the first speech in the committee room. 

Ideas will come up from the very first opening speech in the committee. Once a delegate utters the words,“Honorable chair distinguished delegate” you should be ready to make a few modifications to your opening speech. Adapting  to the room and the ideas is key to success in MUN.

Factor in the speaking order

Opening speeches are usually heard alphabetically. Other options are reverse alphabetical , in order of seating or completely at random . 

Write your speech to build on top of others

Take note of the first letter of your country, write your speech with your place in the speaking order in mind. Countries with the letters A through C often give the first speeches, since not every committee has interviews countries with every letter in the alphabet. : )

(Remember although most conferences have opening speeches in alphabetical order, this is not a guarantee) 

The countries who start their opening speech have first crack at defining the terms, setting the Clash and introducing the first Calls to Action.

More delegates on your Clash = Better

If you are not the first delegate making an opening speech, it is very possible you will join an existing Clash. Joining other delegates with the same idea is not a bad thing. The more delegates who subscribe to your world view the better chance you have to get a majority.

Hearing your Clash by another delegate in previous speeches is a very good thing. This lays the foundation to start building your coalition already during the opening speech stage through a tactic called echoing .

If you are not the first delegate making an opening speech, think what is likely to have been said and add to it. It is very possible you will join an existing Clash. This is not a bad thing. The more delegates there are who subscribe to your world view the better chance you have to get a majority.

As long as it isn’t Off Clash, hearing your Clash in some of the previous speeches is a very good thing. This means you can start building your coalition already during the opening speech stage through a tactic called echoing.

Echo others

Echoing is mentioning another country by name in your speech. You can echo that you agree with them or disagree. You can directly quote or paraphrase. Echoing is not limited to opening speeches but it is a very potent strategy to use when you aren’t the first speaker.

How to Echo:

Echoing in an opening speech is usually best done right before your clash. You can also echo a country in the middle of your speech but it has a larger chance of getting missed.

Echoing in an opening speech can look something like this:

“Portugal agrees with Denmake, France and Haiti and disagreed with Russia and Pakistan.”

When you mention another country by name their ears perk up and they listen. You want allies and the opposing bloc to listen. You definitely want the countries you mention by name to listen.

Echoing in an opening speech needs to have a purpose. The purpose is usually to start putting your coalition together. Mentioning someone else in your speech grants you street credit with them. On a secondary level echoing helps set the Clash. Other countries will see that a number of delegates see your Clash as the issue to discuss and can choose to come on board, or at least acknowledge the Clash as something to be addressed.

If you are not one of the first speakers echoing it is also a way to show other delegates that you’re listening. If you mention countries who spoke at the beginning when you’re one of the later delages to speak, it sounds like your stopped listening at the beginning. It’s better to echo a country from the beginning, middle and a few speakers before you. This way the delegates in the room know your are attentive. 

Echoing other delegates as a way to communicate with them from within your opening speech. Those extra words can help you start building coalitions, and agreeing on what reality the committee is taking place in, before the opening speeches end.

Finally, remember that echoing is part of your word count . If you’re going to echo, factor that into your speech time. A strategy some delegates use is writing their opening speech with 10 words less than fits a minute to leave room for echoing.

Saying CtA Best > Saying CtA First

Some MUN topics have a limited number of policies that can be implemented. If you’re a further down the opening speech list it is very likely someone said your policy, or something like it. This too is a good thing. When the topic has only three or four viable policies, it should be expected that some ideas will repeat themselves.

If you’re dealing with an earthquake there are only so many ways to rescue people from under the rubble.

If you’re dealing with a virus, there are only so many ways to vaccinate and research an antidote.

This is why would should not worry about saying the Call to Action first. On some topics, if you’re the only one to say it, you likely have a much larger problem

This is where going into detail and SMART policy come into play. You can echo the other countries who mentioned your policy idea in one line and develop it. If they gave one line at the end of their speech but you take 25 seconds to explain, the credit will go to you.

Remember that your opening speech is not the end, it’s a beginning. The delegate who best develops the idea, and pushes it the furthest over time, is the one who gets the credit. Also, you don’t need to do it alone. Having one or two strong allies will make a big difference when it comes to getting your Call to Action a central place of the draft resolution. MUN is a team activity and there is no promise of an easy ride to a majority. That is also part of the fun and the magic that is MUN. Be open to working with others and see the other delegates who try to set your Clash or introduce your Call to Action as an opportunity. CIA alone is more work for you. Others joining and supporting  your CIA is the essence of cooperation and leveling up in Model United Nations.

There you have it. The secret to writing a great MUN opening speech. Remember, a speech alone is not though. You need to combine it with proper country representation , good coalition work, and resolution writing . However, if you give a bad opening speech you will need to work extra hard to catch up afterward. This can potentially be especially hard in an expert room.

You will also have to give other speeches after the first one. There are all types of follow up speeches that are needed to keep your CIA going. Once the ideas are out, their repetition is key to keeping your ideas on the table and yourself relevant. However, now that you gave a great opening speech, you have a much better chance to influence the direction the committee takes.

You should also use the tools of CIA speech writing to critically listen to others. Listen to hear what they are missing, whether it’s a Clash, a Call to Action or data to back it up. Write notes on their speeches and factor that into your general strategy.

The tools you gained here are relevant for high school MUN, college or university MUN as well as for other platforms that involve public speech. More importantly, these tools can also be used outside of MUN. After all, being relevant, interesting and driving conversation are even more important outside of a Model UN committee simulation. Make these tools second nature and they should serve you well for a long time.

• Privacy Overview
• Strictly Necessary Cookies

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.