From NBI Studio, this is Truth Injustice, a crowdsourced investigation in real time.

I'm Bob Brum.

If you've listened to me long enough, then no doubt you've heard me say many times before

the trials are won and lost in the closing arguments.

As sad as it is, it's true.

Jurors will sit through weeks and weeks, sometimes months of testimony, and then form their

final verdicts based on a 40-minute speech at the conclusion of the trial.

Who can tell the most believable and logical story?

Who can sum up weeks' worth of minutia into a narrative that the jury will buy into?

Closing arguments are not evidence, and the jury is instructed not to consider them as

evidence.

While that may seem like a good thing, it can also lead to very bad things.

The lawyers are not bound by the truth, or facts in the closing arguments.

There are supposed to be rules about mistating evidence, but to be honest, I've never seen

that make a bit of difference.

It's frowned upon to object during opposing counsel's closing.

But every once in a while, things will get so ridiculous that an objection is offered,

usually for mistating evidence from the trial, and the rulings are almost always the same.

Overruled.

The jury knows this is not evidence.

Players on both sides will completely misrepresent what the witnesses said on the stand without

a second thought.

...