trial criminal-procedure
Why does the prosecutor get both the first and the last word at trial?
<p>In the U.S., rules of court have the prosecutor in a criminal trial giving the first opening statement, followed by the defense's opening statement; and then the final closing statement, after the defense's closing statement.</p>
<p>Giving the prosecution both the first and the last word seems like obviously tilting the scale of justice in its favor, and against the accused.  If so it would seem to violate the legal principle <em>in dubio pro reo</em> and associated customs and practices to assume an accused is innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  At the very least an outsider might think it more fair to have opening and closing statements in the same order: I.e., if the defense speaks last at opening then it also speaks last at closing.</p>
<p>What are the origins and reasons for this custom of giving the prosecution the first and last word at trial?</p>

<p>This mirrors the motion-response-reply formula used in motion practice and appellate briefing and in appellate oral arguments, in which someone asking for relief makes their case, someone opposing it responds, and the person seeking relief may rebut the reasons raised in the response.</p>
<p>In most applications of this rule (although not necessarily closing arguments at trial), it is balanced by the rule that no new arguments raised in a final reply will be considered unless the other party is given an opportunity to present a sur-reply to remedy the expanded scope of the reply.</p>
<p>The formula reflects the fact that the person seeking relief has the burden of proof which if not overcome, results in no relief, by preventing the ability of a party to overcome the burden of proof from being thwarted in obtaining relief by a weak argument that is not rebutted even though it easily could be rebutted.</p>
<p>This said, it is a low level custom for how arguments should be made and not a hard and fast entrenched and codified rule in most cases. A court could (but rarely does) vary this rule on a case by case basis.</p>
