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.
John M. Hark,
Closing Arguments: Enforcing Fairness in the Presentation of Damages,
60 Mo. L. Rev.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol60/iss2/8