To summarize the evidence presented during the trial.

To introduce new evidence not presented during the trial.

To argue for a specific verdict or outcome in the case.

To provide legal advice to the jury.

The judge

The jury

The attorneys for each party

The court reporter

Appealing to the jury's emotions

Using humor to lighten the mood

Presenting new evidence not presented during the trial

Arguing for a specific verdict or outcome in the case

To ensure that the attorneys follow the rules of evidence

To provide legal advice to the jury

To instruct the jury on the law

To decide the verdict in the case

The jury begins deliberating

The judge decides the verdict

The trial is adjourned

The attorneys present their opening statements

To present new evidence not presented during the trial

To respond to the arguments made by the opposing party

To summarize the evidence presented during the trial

To provide legal advice to the jury

They must not make false or misleading statements.

They must not appeal to the jury's emotions.

They must not present new evidence not presented during the trial.

They must not argue for a specific verdict or outcome in the case.

A closing argument is presented at the end of the trial, while a summation is presented at the beginning.

A closing argument is presented by the attorneys for each party, while a summation is presented by the judge.

A closing argument is used to argue for a specific verdict or outcome in the case, while a summation is used to summarize the evidence presented during the trial.

There is no difference between a closing argument and a summation.

Objection, hearsay!

Objection, leading question!

Objection, relevance!

Objection, speculation!

To decide the verdict in the case

To provide legal advice to the judge

To present evidence during the trial

To determine the admissibility of evidence

Direct examination is conducted by the party who called the witness, while cross-examination is conducted by the opposing party.

Direct examination is used to introduce evidence, while cross-examination is used to challenge the evidence presented during direct examination.

Direct examination is conducted by the judge, while cross-examination is conducted by the attorneys for each party.

There is no difference between a direct examination and a cross-examination.

To introduce the attorneys and the parties involved in the case

To summarize the evidence that will be presented during the trial

To argue for a specific verdict or outcome in the case

To provide legal advice to the jury

In a civil trial, the plaintiff is seeking to recover damages, while in a criminal trial, the government is seeking to punish the defendant.

In a civil trial, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, while in a criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the government.

In a civil trial, the jury decides the verdict, while in a criminal trial, the judge decides the verdict.

There is no difference between a civil trial and a criminal trial.

To select the jury for the trial

To determine the admissibility of evidence

To present evidence during the trial

To provide legal advice to the jury