I have anything that is I have no secrets to how I can just be blunt and people could judge it

how do they judge it from NBI studios this is truth and, a crowdsourced investigation in real time.

I'm Bob Ruff.

Thank you. The best story wins. It all comes down to that. Ask any seasoned trial lawyer, and they'll tell you that at the

end of the day, jurors more often than not are persuaded into their verdicts based on the closing

arguments. I hate them. I hate the whole idea of how closing arguments are presented at trials.

On paper, the arguments are intended to summarize

each side's case to the jury, refresh their memories about the evidence that they had heard

throughout the trial, and explain to them how everything fits together with the presenting

attorney's theory of the case. The problem is that, again, on paper, closing arguments are not considered evidence.

And because they're not evidence, the rules of evidence don't apply to these speeches,

which opens the door for the attorneys to tell wild stories, not supported by the evidence at all.

In many cases, they even misstate the evidence are quite

literally just make stuff up. The problem is compounded by the fact that it's generally frowned upon

to object during closing arguments. And even when things do get outrageous enough for someone

to object for misleading statements or misstating facts and evidence,

the judge's typical response is to simply remind the jury that closing arguments are not

evidence, and the statement stands. In my opinion, the closing arguments of today make a mockery

of the entire trial. Like the evidence presented doesn't even matter. After hearing

days, sometimes weeks or months of testimony and evidence, the last words that the jury hears before

heading off to deliberate are stories, oftentimes not even rooted in any evidence.

And since again, on paper, the prosecution has the burden of proof, the state gets to deliver the final word to the jury.

...