John M. Hark


The permissible scope of closing arguments before a jury is broad.' One limit, however, arises in plaintiff's final closing. Offering the party with the burden of proof an opportunity to respond to any new arguments raised by the opposing party arose from notions of fairness. The court held that it was an abuse of discretion to allow a plaintiff to withhold a request for a specific amount for total damages until the plaintiff's final closing argument, when the issue had not been addressed by the initial closing argument or the defendant's argument. This Note reviews the Tune decision, and discusses the logic and fairness inherent in the court's decision.

Included in

Law Commons



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.