Closing summations are usually a time reserved to revisit the major points of a lawyer's case. It is the last chance for him to prove his point, to compel the jury, to allow those twelve individuals to see the case through his own eyes. In the case of Carl Lee Hailey, Jake Brigance effectively utilized only two of those three modes of attack. Brigance's entire case was based around the insanity of Carl Lee. During the trial, his case was wounded and bleeding by the prosecution. Yet, it was by means of his closing summation that he was able to compel the jury and to force those people to see the case through his eyes while ignoring the point of his case: insanity.
Brigance took a very clever approach in addressing the jury. He openly admitted that he had a wonderfully articulate speech scripted already, but he had chosen to speak to them not as a lawyer but as a fellow individual of the state of Mississippi. Brigance argued that every man is biased—it's not our fault, only......
Join Now or Login to view the rest of this paper.
Approximate Word Count: 556
Approximate Pages: 3 (260 words per double-spaced page) |