How to Structure a Closing Speech
- tomplan94
- Jan 16
- 3 min read
And how to deliver it.
The Ancients - Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian - said that forensic speeches should be partitioned as follows.
1) Introduction (Prooemium)
2) Narration (Narratio)
3) Proof (Confirmatio/Refutatio)
4) Conclusion (Peroration)
This is a timeless framework that still works even though modern trial procedures have evolved significantly.
Why doubt Cicero, or Quintilian, both of whom have tried numerous important cases as advocates, and whose books on advocacy have defied time and space to land in your library? Or Aristotle, whose treatise ‘Rhetoric’ remains authoritative, even though he was not a member of the bar.
The structure is intuitive. You begin by introducing the issues of the case first, or yourself for that matter, and outline a general theme. Then, you will narrate the facts - your version of the events at dispute. Next, the meat and potatoes: the logical arguments (proofs), the deductions from testimony. Why you are right, and the other side wrong. Finally, you restate the important points and conclude with an emotional appeal.
That being said, ancient trials had very different procedures than today. Each side had just one continuous speech in which they intertwined their witnesses, and their speeches would be measured by a water clock. The size of juries was also very large.
Today, at least in common law jurisdictions, the process is segmented. You begin with opening speeches, then witnesses for the state or plaintiff, then witnesses for the defense, and, finally, closing speeches. Thus, your closing speech must often be planned spontaneously the night before, based on how the evidence comes in. A trial can last several days or even weeks or months.
Even so, the ancient structure remains valid. It mirrors how humans process information.
Note also Quintilian’s remarks on how to deliver the respective sections. Your Introduction should be made in a measured, relaxed voice without too much gesturing. The jury leans in and is hyper alert. Your voice will also benefit from a little warmup. I have seen people from time to time who come in swinging, starting loud with some punch line. That is obnoxious. Don’t be obnoxious. You think it is cool but everything you say after will seem underwhelming.
The Narration should be delivered in a more running style. Quicken the pace and use the physical space that the well of the courtroom gives you. Use gestures in moderation.
The Proof portion is where you use all the colors of your voice and all the gestures. Now you point the finger. Now you use the dramatic pauses, the rhetorical questions, the mountains and valleys of your voice. You will use all the rhetorical devices at your disposal, especially the antithesis.
Lastly, you will Conclude with an emotional appeal. After all, a lot is at stake, and every case has that human element that should hit home with the jury. Go back to a more soothing and restrained style in your ending.
As you become more sophisticated, you will be able to blend the narrative and proof portions of your speech, mixing logic and pathos. But until then, stick to the basics.
As examples, look into Lysias’ speech on behalf of a defendant accused of murdering his wife’s lover, available here:
Or Demosthenes’ speech on behalf of a client involved in an inheritance dispute, available here:
Yours,
Tom
Comments