“[Preparation] is the be-all of good trial work. Everything else – felicity of expression, improvisational brilliance – is a satellite around the sun. Thorough preparation is that sun.” – Louis Nizer[1]

PROLOGUE: ‘MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY ...’

The closing argument is a lawyer’s final opportunity to give meaning, context and perspective to the evidence introduced during a trial. It is “a finely crafted verbal work of art”[2] that concisely incorporates all of the evidence from trial into one theory so that the evidence the jury hears is consistent with the attorney’s theme of the case.[3] Because the argument is received by the juror’s ear and not read by the eye, the closing argument remains one of the highest forms of the ancient art of the true “raconteur.”[4]

In a criminal trial, the accused has “a constitutional right to be heard in summation of the evidence from the point of view most favorable to him.”[5] Such right arises out of the Sixth Amendment’s “right to the assistance of counsel,” which the U.S. Supreme Court defines as “the opportunity to participate fully and fairly in the adversary fact finding process.”[6] In Oklahoma state criminal matters, this right is codified.[7] The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has long allowed counsel for the parties a wide range of discussion and illustration.[8] In giving a closing argument, counsel have a “considerable degree of latitude”[9] to discuss fully from their standpoint the evidence and “may argue all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the record,”[10] as well as deductions and conclusions drawn from the evidence.[11]

In civil matters, closing arguments are discretionary with the trial court,[12] and the Oklahoma Supreme Court has determined there is no error to deny closing arguments in civil matters since it rests in the discretion of the trial judge.[13]

FOUNDATIONS: THE ETHICS OF CLOSING ARGUMENTS

“How high a price is that to pay if he saved just one single life? Madam, I will give you $427,000 for your child. Deal? And you, madam. Same price for your husband. And you, counselor. How about half a million bucks for your precious hide?” – Jedediah Tucker Ward (Gene Hackman) in Class Action (1991)

Above all, prepare for closing argument by staying within the boundaries of the Rules of Professional Responsibility.[14] During both trial and on appeal, courts routinely monitor an attorney’s closing argument with great scrutiny as it is often prone to error.[15] Error in closing arguments arises most often with criminal prosecutors and in civil litigation when the lawyer becomes recklessly focused on “winning the battle” of a trial. The danger of overzealousness can cause the lawyer to “lose the war” later in post-trial or on appeal.[16] While the errors are primarily focused on the prosecutor and plaintiffs’ counsel, the basic rules of closing argument are simple but should be noted by all:

• Do not misstate the facts,[17] the evidence[18] or the law,[19] but it is always proper to make “fair comment”[20] on “reasonable inferences.”
• Do not make personal attacks on opposing counsel (“One more word and I am going to pop you in the mouth!”)[21] or on the opposing party (calling the party a “slut puppy”).[22]
• Do not state personal beliefs about the case (avoid the “I believe ...”).[23]
• Do not refer to the jurors by name.[24]
• Do not argue facts that are not in the record, such as commenting on suppressed evidence[25] or using statements sustained by objection.[26]
• Do not personally vouch for the credibility of any witness,[27] as that is within the sole purview of the jury.[28]
• Do not attempt to inflame the passions or prejudices of a juror (g., Lawton is “the crime capital of the world”[29]).
• Do not urge an irrelevant use of the evidence in matters, such as the “golden rule,”[30] comment on broader social implications[31] or tell the jurors to be the “community watchdogs.”[32]
• Do not discuss the judicial process. (“Your [the jury’s] job is reviewable. They know it.”[33])
• Prosecutors cannot comment, by both Oklahoma case law and statute,[34] on a defendant’s silence at trial.[35]

Prosecutors, due to their “special responsibility,” have been more prone to committing misconduct in closing argument.[36] As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, “The function of the prosecutor ... is not to tack as many skins of victims as possible to the wall.”[37] A prosecutor's use of improper methods during closing argument can be grounds for reversal or mistrial where such remarks “so infect the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process."[38]

In Oklahoma criminal courts, it is rare for a case to be reversed, as opposed to remanded for a new trial, due to a prosecutor's misconduct in closing argument.[39] However, the U.S. Supreme Court took exception to how that standard was applied[40] in a 2025 death penalty case when it revisited misconduct in closing argument. In that matter, Oklahoma County jurors heard the female defendant referred to by the prosecutor as a “hoochie” and a “slut puppy.”[41] The prosecutor also held up a thong and lace bra in front of the jurors and declared that a “grieving widow doesn’t pack her thong underwear and run off with her boyfriend!” This was all used to convince the jury that this defendant should be executed for her husband’s murder. In a per curiam order, the U.S. Supreme Court found the prosecutor’s statements about the woman’s sex life and apparent “failings as a mother and wife” to be so prejudicial that they violated the due process clause and rendered the trial fundamentally unfair.

Similarly, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that comparisons with other unrelated offenses that inject fear and passion into the proceedings are improper. One example is an assistant district attorney who compared the crime in the case with the infamous 1970s Sirloin Stockade murders in Oklahoma City during closing argument.[42] In another example of impropriety, Oklahoma appellate courts have found reversible error when a prosecutor attempts to invoke the “golden rule” or argues the possibility that a defendant may commit future crimes.[43] ("I would ask you to send a message to the defendant that enough is enough. This is the fourth time. And we are going to send a message to the defendant that it needs to stop.")[44] In another example, after a number of appeals involving alleged misconduct by the same Tulsa County prosecutor, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals pointed out, by name, a particular prosecutor who was “playing chicken” with both the trial and appellant courts after a series of cases in which “she also flouted the law and ignored the direct and explicit rulings of the trial court.”[45] In another example, this time in Garvin County,[46] the prosecutor’s closing argument continually referred to the defendant's post-Miranda silence. In reversing and noting a prosecutor's “duty was to seek justice and not merely to conviction,” the court found the defendant’s rights to due process were violated.[47]

Defense counsel in criminal matters are subject as well to the same closing argument strictures, but in addition, they can also be found ineffective in their representation in arguments.[48] Under the standard of Strickland v. Washington,[49] to show deficient performance, it must be shown that “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,”[50] and there was “probability sufficient to undermine the outcome.”[51] 

PREPARING TO PREPARE: THE WRITTEN WORD VERSUS THE SPOKEN WORD

As a general rule, no one talks the same way they write, so it is suggested that counsel, in their preparations, talk first and write second. More importantly, counsel should always choose the words carefully.[52] In developing his own skills as an orator, Abraham Lincoln studied how poets and orators expressed themselves by noting how they would turn a phrase or use figures of speech, and he admired the “great truths greatly told.”[53] In preparation for his own speeches during the 1960 presidential campaign, John F. Kennedy admitted he would pour a brandy and smoke a cigar as he spoke along with recordings of Winston Churchill’s speeches.[54]

Counsel should be mindful to also avoid making legal arguments to a jury or to lose that connection by speaking “legalese” to a jury. Legal arguments (e.g., “beyond a reasonable doubt”) are rarely persuasive to a juror, and it is advisable to allow statements on the law (i.e., jury instructions) to be heard from the judge first. However, jurors can be persuaded by describing those legal arguments into “big picture” principles. Everyone can relate to justice, fairness and what is right and wrong. In that same breath, attorneys should also avoid “cop talk,” but when it cannot be avoided, a criminal defense or civil rights plaintiff’s attorney can point out that it was the choice of words by the prosecutor/government/insurance defense.[55]

If a case requires a “legal” argument, counsel must find a way to argue without invoking a nonemotional legal technicality itself. It can remind a juror that those technicalities are tied to the same principles that so appeal to their hearts.[56] For example, in the criminal context, to most jurors, the requirement of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” may appear to be just a legal technicality. Without discussing the “legal” aspect of it, as the trial judge will mention to them, it is the big picture principle of the fear of convicting an innocent person that resonates with a juror. Finally, in preparing the closing argument, it is always best to keep to the adage of “keep it simple, stupid.”[57]

STEP 1: ARGUMENT ‘CHAPTERS’

“All the world’s a stage ... and one man in his time plays many parts.” – William Shakespeare, As You Like It, Act 2, Sec. 7

Without some framework for processing, jurors may get lost while the story is being told. It is much worse if the jurors forget what was said. An attorney cannot effectively argue when the jury can see that the attorney does not appear to believe their own argument, and this can be combated early by compiling those undisputed facts that support the desired verdict. Once listed, place them into related groups as “chapters” with a working title. The “chapter method” provides an easy structure. Many may recognize the “chapter method” from a popular technique (and book) on how to do cross-examination.[58] It is an effective tool to break down a cross-examination into a series of self-contained chapters. One example of the chapter method being applied in closing argument would start with an issue from trial, such as “problems with the eyewitness identification.” Other anticipated common chapters in any given trial might be “physical evidence” or “investigative failures.” Another obvious place to look for “chapter headings” would be in the jury instructions, which can provide a memorable chapter for a juror to weave those instructions into a closing argument. When done well, the “chapter” technique (with the artful placement of facts (testimony)), the judge’s own instructions and counsel’s “theory of the case” or “theme” will help a juror connect the dots together to a winning verdict for counsel.

STEP 2: BELOW EACH CHAPTER, LIST THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

Next, counsel should dig deep into every report, transcript, interview, photograph or any other piece of evidence and compile them into building blocks that support the theory of the case. Once obtained, list them under the appropriate chapter headings. Again, in returning to “identification issues,” counsel may list: “Witness briefly saw a vehicle pass by his home and was unable to provide description;” “Later, gave description of dark-in-color, small truck;” and “In third interview, description evolved into a dark blue SUV.” These differences, when packaged together properly and memorably, are the factual piece of the argument that gives credence to counsel’s arguments elsewhere when all that is available is a “reasonable inference.”

STEP 3: FORMULATE AN ARGUMENT UNDER EACH HEADING

As with the telling of a story, each chapter must have a beginning, a middle and an end. In the start, tell the jurors what point is being made (“tell them what you're going to tell them”). Next, counsel should discuss the undisputed evidence supporting their point (“tell them”). Finally, at the end of each chapter, repeat those points made and their connection to the favorable verdict. In other words, counsel should not only remind the jurors what they have already been told but also explain “why” it was told to them. Counsel must not only lay out the evidence and the reasonable inferences thereof supporting a verdict but must also articulate its significance as it follows the “theory” of the case. In moving from one chapter to the next, counsel should continuously incorporate the case “theme” or “theory” at every opportunity.

STEP 4: DECIDE THE ORDER OF THE STORY AND WEED OUT THE CHAFF

“If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter.” – French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal (1657)

With the “Gettysburg Address,” President Lincoln went through numerous drafts before finding the 272 words that not only moved a country but also now echo through history.[59] And just as with any great speech, the final summation of a case takes significant time, effort and focused creativity. Counsel should select the chapter that is the strongest argument and then place it at the very end of the closing argument. Do not get caught in the minutia that loses the attention of the juror. Next, counsel should select the second strongest argument as a chapter and insert it at the beginning of the closing. The remaining chapters should be placed in a manner, as discussed previously, that builds upon one another so that it reaches a juror both logically (logos) and emotionally (ethos). In building the argument, each chapter should continually be evaluated for clarity, weakness or inconsistency. With a foundation of facts and logic established, it allows for the emotional part of an argument to grow toward a powerful ending rather than end with a meek “thank you” with counsel quickly sitting down.

STEP 5: TIGHTEN UP AND POLISH THE PERSUASIVENESS

“If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” – Johnnie Cochran Jr.

An effective closing is an argument, not merely a summation. The art and science of how to effectively use the spoken word in advocacy has been documented historically to Aristotle and Cicero, who first discussed this understanding of ethos, logos and pathos in the artful delivery of a story. For the trial lawyer, it also requires the ability to deliver it with clarity and order. In developing the closing, an advocate should look for common experiences between the speaker and the listener to illustrate points. One basic way to build a memorable chapter is to weave jury instructions into a closing argument. The technique requires the statement of facts (testimony) immediately followed by those same instructions from the court.

In addition, there are several other ways to not only capture a juror’s attention but also make counsel’s words unforgettable. One often-taught example is the use of the “Rule of Three.” This technique, the poetic use of words or phrases in threes, was used by Cicero, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill and John F. Kennedy. This creative phrasing captivates an audience (“of the people, by the people and for the people,” “blood, sweat and tears,” “contaminated, compromised and corrupted”).[60] It is the repetition of a word or short phrase that gives a memorable statement of the case that jurors may carry with them into their deliberations. For criminal defense counsel, a powerful example of concluding a closing could be: “He is not guilty. Not guilty by the physical evidence, not guilty by the mouths of the witnesses and not guilty by his own brave testimony.”

In addition, there are several other verbal tools of rhetoric that counsel should consider using in a closing argument. One example is the use of analogies to help a jury grasp a concept or situation by analogizing to a relatable story that a juror may have from their own experiences. Another powerful example is the clever but careful use of metaphors or alliteration, such as using a series of words that begin with or include the same sound, e.g., “a small-time snitch searching for someone to sacrifice.”

Next, every trial lawyer should always be able to tap into well-known quotations at their disposal, as they provide a powerful way of making the point with long-accepted wisdom. These quotes are often found in historical events (e.g., “Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive,” or John Adams’ “Facts are stubborn things”); historical literature; well known music lyrics (“You don’t need a weatherman to tell you which way the wind is blowing”); or even movies. Another example includes emphasizing a witness caught in a lie without calling that witness a “liar.”

Finally, counsel should not be afraid to use the power of silence (aka “the pregnant pause”). Naturally, most feel that any silence must be met with some verbal “filler.” It may be random and meaningless words, the unintended “ok” or the nonwords of “um” or “uh.” Silence builds tension in a courtroom, and it can also recapture and keep a juror’s attention. The use of silence emphasizes a powerful moment, with a point being made or to let a significant statement hang in the air. This pregnant pause allows jurors to embrace and privately contemplate the moment. Finally, using deliberate pauses and silence in the final words of a closing argument while meeting the eyes of each juror evokes counsel’s own belief and passion in the case. It is even more powerful to be met with a pause of silence after a passionate argument, emphasized with a softly said “thank you” before returning to the counsel table.

STEP 6: THE FIRST WORDS OF THE CLOSING ARGUMENT MUST BE IMPACTFUL

“It was a dark and stormy night ...” – Snoopy, World-Famous Author

The first few minutes of a closing argument will be when a juror is most attentive. Counsel should not waste time thanking the jury or apologizing for the time spent in trial. A strong and powerful closing is one that commands the attention of the entire courtroom. Those early statements can be quoting a witness, reinforcing the strategic theme that arose throughout the case, or it may be as simple as telling the story of the case in a creative and descriptive manner, with the powerful facts of the case that will drive a verdict.

STEP 7: HAVE AN ‘EXIT STRATEGY’ WITH THE FINAL WORDS OF THE CLOSING ARGUMENT

Attorneys may find themselves at the end of their closing arguments yet not know how to conclude it with impact and sit down. This is the last chance to give the jurors those words to remember by keeping it sincere and from the heart. One powerful verbal tool that is often used by preachers and comedians alike is the “call back” method. It is highly effective by bringing closure to the case by referencing a phrase (e.g., “theme”) invoked from the initial opening statement or a powerful statement made by a witness. Another powerful point of persuasion is when counsel can use opposing counsel’s words to drive their own case to the verdict sought. Finally, counsel should ensure they have the “exit strategy,” those “go-to” phrases counsel can always return to at the end the closing argument (e.g., “Justice demands that you return a verdict that speaks the truth,” or “The fair verdict, the just verdict and the right verdict is a verdict of ...”).

STEP 8: REHEARSE IT OVER AND OVER

“How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice.”[61]

An advocate must not only prepare what to say during the closing argument but also its delivery. A powerful closing calls for diligent practice. It must be done by speaking out loud. Whether in the shower, to a mirror, in a car while driving or to a spouse, colleague or pet, the argument must be verbalized. Do not memorize it, as it will lack sincerity. Each time it’s practiced, the argument will organically evolve to counsel’s own style that will demonstrate counsel’s personal sincerity and keep the case real to the listener.

STEP 9: BREAK IT DOWN TO A SINGLE-PAGE OUTLINE

An advocate is very unlikely to read a closing argument to a jury and be able to persuade them. Persuasiveness comes from an attorney’s own passion, which derives from an attorney knowing every small detail of their case. As a final step in preparation, it is a worthy recommendation to have reduced the argument to a one-page outline that can be placed on the lectern. The outline will list no more than a word or two as a prompt. Seasoned trial lawyers will place a cup of water by the outline on the counsel table and, in the event they need to jog a memory, will simply pause, walk back to the counsel table, pick up the cup and take a sip with a quick glance at the outline. Another useful tool is that counsel may simply list those memory-jarring one- to two-word chapters on a PowerPoint presentation or on some “old school” butcher paper as demonstrative evidence to use during closing argument. Not only does it relieve counsel from looking down at any notes, but it also allows the jurors to more easily follow the argument. It is advisable to inform the court and opposing counsel of the intent to use such trial tools to avoid objections and interrupting the rhythm of the case.[62]

A POSTSCRIPT ON CLOSING ARGUMENTS

“An advocate can be confronted with few more formidable tasks than to select his closing arguments.” – Robert H. Jackson, Chief Counsel for the United States at the Nuremberg Trial, 1946

It is in those final moments before a jury that the attorney must command the courtroom by seizing the attention of the jury and maintaining it. Every closing argument should be developed with the tools of storytelling. There are a myriad of techniques any lawyer can use to polish their performance in delivering a closing argument, but it should be a goal that counsel’s words are carried by the jurors into the deliberation room. While there is no substitute for the actual experience of a jury trial itself, all attorneys can study both the art and science of persuasion and public speaking to become that true raconteur.

---

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Robert Don Gifford II is a solo practitioner in Oklahoma City and the 2025 Oklahoma Criminal Defense Lawyers Association Clarence Darrow Award winner for his advocacy in and out of the courtroom.

 

 

 

 

---

ENDNOTES

[1] Jerrold K. Footlick et al., “Lawyers on Trial,” Newsweek, Dec. 11, 1978, at 98, 99 (quoting New York lawyer Louis Nizer).

[2] Michael S. Lief, H. Mitchell Caldwell and Ben Bycel, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, p. 11-12 (June 2, 2000).

[3] Frederick Levin, Mike Papantonio and Martin Levin, Closing Arguments – The Last Battle (June 1, 2003).

[4] See generally, Gerry Spence, How to Argue and Win Every Time (Jan. 1, 1996).

[5] Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 (1975).

[6] Id. at 858.

[7] Henry v. State, 1913 OK CR 311, 10 Okla. Crim. 369, 136 P.982.

[8] Sanders v. State, 2015 OK CR 11, ¶21, 358 P.3d 280, 286.

[9] Finley v. State, 1981 OK CR 3, 623 P.2d 1031, 1035.

[10] Tart v. State, 1981 OK CR 113, 634 P.2d 750, 751; Maxville v. State, 1981 OK CR 73, 629 P.2d 1279, 1283; Cobbs v. State, 1981 OK CR 60, 629 P.2d 368, 269.

[11] McCauley v. State, 1988 OK CR 25, 750 P.2d 1124.

[12] 12 Okla. Stat. 577.

[13] Missouri Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Mead, 1964 OK 126, 393 P.2d 521, 524; Crescent Oil Co. v. Brumley, 1934 OK 593, 169 Okla. 462, 464, 37 P.2d 593, 595; Barnes v. Benham, 1904 OK 14, 13 Okla. 582, 75 P. 1130.

[14] Robert Don Gifford, “Ethics and the Criminal Prosecutor: Guilt Shall Not Escape nor Innocents Shall Suffer,” OBJ (December 2005).

[15] See Mark Hansen, “If the Claim Doesn’t Fit,” ABA Journal (June 1997).

[16] Sharisse O’Carroll, “When Does Offensive Speech Become Professional Misconduct,” OBJ (October 1996); see also Robert Don Gifford, “Very Appealing Ethics,” OBJ (December 2006).

[17] Satepeahtaw v. State, 1979 OK CR 47, 595 P.2d 805, 808.

[18] Scott v. State, 1945 OK CR 48, 158 p.2d 728 (1979).

[19] Hau v. State, 1925 OK CR 175, 30 Okla. Crim. 24, 28, 234 P. 649, 650.

[20] Frick v. State, 1981 OK CR 108, 623 P.2d 738, 743.

[21] This would also include improper comments at side bar. See Mayberry v. State, 1979 OK CR 134, 603 P.2d 1150.

[22] Andrew v. White, 604 U.S. ____ (Jan. 21, 2025); Wilson v. State, 1998 OK CR 73, 983 P.2d 448.

[23] See Rule 3.4, Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 Okla. Stat., Ch. 1, App. 3-A.

[24] See 12 Okla. Stat., Ch. 2, App., Rule 6 (“Counsel shall avoid repetition, shall not call jurors by their first names or indulge in other familiarities with individual jurors.”); McMahan v. State, 1960 OK CR 22, 354 P.2d 476, 484; Donaho v. State, 1935 OK CR 148, 58 Okla. Crim. 198, 203, 51 P.2d 348, 349.

[25] See ABA Standard for Criminal Justice Standards 4-7.8 and commentary.

[26] Omalza v. State, 1995 OK CR 80, 911 P.2d 286 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995); Newsted v. State, 1986 OK CR 82, 720 P.2d 734; see also M. Shane Henry, “Objection: 'Shut Up!’” OBJ (2024); see also M. Shane Henry, “Slaying the Speaking Objection Dragon,” OBJ (2016).

[27] Fitzgerald v. State, 91 Okla. Crim. 437, 441, 219 P.2d 1024, 1026 (1950); Sisk v. State, 487 P.2d 1003, 1004 (Okla. Crim. App. 1971); Payne v. State, 520 P.2d 694, 697 (Okla. Crim App. 1974).

[28] Charm v. State, 1996 OK CR 40, 924 P.2d 754.

[29] Jones v. State, 1980 OK CR 28, 554 P.2d 830, 834.

[30] Luke 6:30 (“And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise”); see also Chicago, R.I. & Pac. R.R. v. American Airlines, Inc., 408 P.2d 789, 791 (Okla. 1965); Lime v. State, 479 P.2d 608, 609 (Okla. Crim. App. 1971); Hays v. State, 646 P.2d 1311.

[31] Brewer v. State, 650 P.2d 54, 58 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982) (a prosecutor may not comment on increasing crime rates); Coker v. State, 26 Okla. Crim. 230 223 P. 711 (1924).

[32] Jones v. State, 1983 OK CR 31, 660 P.2d 634.

[33] Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 325 (1985).

[34] 22 Okla. Stat. §22-701.

[35] In Griffin v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court held that under the Fifth and 14th amendments, a prosecutor at trial could not comment on an accused’s silence. See also Lime v. State, 1971 OK CR 9, 479 P.2d 608.

[36] “Brady v. Maryland – The Path to Truth and Fairness,” Jack Fisher, OBJ (March 2016) (“The best example of a bad example occurred in two severed Oklahoma County death penalty trials ... [when] Bob Macy's assistant knowingly suborned perjury by bolstering the ‘lynchpin’ witness' testimony that he requested no ‘help’ with his drug case, then lauded his honesty and bravery during closing argument knowing the witness requested and the prosecutor agreed to provide assistance with his criminal cases.”).

[37] Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 648-49 (1974) (quoting Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935)).

[38] Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974).

[39] Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181-182 (1986); Tafolla v. State, 2019 OK CR 15, 446 P.3d 1248, 1260.

[40] Andrew v. State, 2007 OK CR 23, 164 P. 3d 176 (2007).

[41] Brenda Evers Andrew v. Tamika White, Warden, 604 U.S. ____ (Jan. 21, 2025).

[42] Henderson v. State, 1963 OK CR 68, 695 P.2d 879, 883; see also Cobbs v. State, 1969 OK CR 188, 629 P.2d 368.

[43] Brewer v. State, 1982 OK CR 128, ¶8, 650 P.2d 54, 58 (commenting on the possibility that a defendant may commit future crimes is highly improper).

[44] McWilliams v. State, 1987 OK CR 203, 743 P.2d 666, 669.

[45] Ezell v. State, 1995 OK CR 71, 909 P.2d 68 (1995).

[46] Smith v. State, 1987 OK CR 235, 744 P.2d 1282 (1987).

[47] Id.

[48] Shelley L. Levisay and David T. McKenzie, “Ineffective Assistance of Counsel with the Modern Court and Tips for Effective Trial Advocacy,” OBJ (December 2024).

[49] 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

[50] Id., at 687.

[51] Id., at 694.

[52] Todd A. Berger, “A Trial Attorney’s Dilemma: How Storytelling as a Trial Strategy Can Impact a Criminal Defendant’s Successful Appellate Review,” Drexel Law Rev. (Spring 2011, p. 297).

[53] Stephen Oates, With Malice Toward None: A Life of Abraham Lincoln, 45 (Harper Perennial, 1994).

[54] Richard Reeves, President Kennedy: Profile of Power, 41 (Simon & Schuster, 1994).

[55] See Sunwolf, “Toxic Words Poison,” The Champion (August 2001, p. 28).

[56] W. Ross Foote, “Things That Bug Juries,” OBJ (September 1996).

[57] Melanie Ruhgani, “Keep It Simple, Stupid,” OBJ (February 2015).

[58] Roger Dodd and Larry Pozner, Cross-Examination: Science and Techniques (3rd ed., 2018).

[59] Gary Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words that Remade America, 27-28 (1992).

[60] Barry Scheck’s theme in his closing argument in People v. Orenthal James Simpson (1995).

[61] Michael Pollak, “The Origins of that Famous Carnegie Hall Joke,” The New York Times, Nov. 27, 2009, available at https://bit.ly/476SATn.

[62] See generally, Cheatham v. State, 1995 OK CR 32, 900 P.2d 414.