Very interesting summary. I've never been on a jury, and I learned two things from that article:
1) The lawyers can say basically whatever they want, but the jurors are "supposed" to only consider actual evidence - stuff shown from the witness stand, with a few exceptions - when making their decision. I guess this is why you want a really good lawyer... he can convince them to interpret the evidence in his way.
2) The different parties can present stuff while talking (like the Lindholm emails) which aren't evidence, and it's basically up to the jury to remember what's what. Potentially very confusing, and again, I guess that's why you want a good lawyer.
If I'm wrong on either of these, I would appreciate it if someone who actually knows something about law would correct me. Very interesting, thorough, and well-done writeup!
During opening arguments, the lawyers are not supposed to argue. In other words, they are only supposed tell the jury what the evidence is going to show. However, there is an art to this, and there is obviously an element of persuasion in the way the evidence is presented. Also, for various reasons, the opposing counsel may not object to possibly argumentative statements.
During closing statements the lawyers are free to argue that the evidence should be interpreted a certain way, but you are basically correct that the jury should use their own judgment based on the facts presented. Yes, a persuasive lawyer is worth a lot!
As to point 2, there are exceptions and nuances, but basically the parties CANNOT present things that are not admissible evidence. During opening arguments the parties can use items that will eventually be admitted into evidence, and the email is definitely one of those things. The parties have already argued extensively over whether the email should be admitted, and the judge has ruled that it will. Ideally, the jury never hears or sees anything that is not admissible evidence.
Clarification to my reply above: I meant to say "opening statements", and "closing arguments", not the other way around. This is what they are are actually called, I'm not sure why I wrote it the other way. I hope this clarifies my meaning a little.
Thanks for clarifying that about point 2, I didn't realize that the fact that it would be entered as evidence later on was relevant to his showing it now. Very interesting how the legal system works.
1) The lawyers can say basically whatever they want, but the jurors are "supposed" to only consider actual evidence - stuff shown from the witness stand, with a few exceptions - when making their decision. I guess this is why you want a really good lawyer... he can convince them to interpret the evidence in his way.
2) The different parties can present stuff while talking (like the Lindholm emails) which aren't evidence, and it's basically up to the jury to remember what's what. Potentially very confusing, and again, I guess that's why you want a good lawyer.
If I'm wrong on either of these, I would appreciate it if someone who actually knows something about law would correct me. Very interesting, thorough, and well-done writeup!