Opinion ID: 40560
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The Order of Closing Arguments

Text: 86 Gonzales contends that the district court erred in how it ordered closing arguments. 87 Closing arguments began Thursday afternoon. There was discussion with the court as to whether to attempt to complete the arguments that afternoon. The preference of all concerned seemed to be not to do so. The defense attorneys asked that after the government's initial closing argument each defendant's counsel be allowed to make a part of his closing argument that afternoon and the balance of it Friday morning. The government strenuously objected, insisting that at the least each defendant's argument should be completed before the argument of the next defendant began. Defense counsel did not want to proceed in that fashion, nor did the defense want to postpone any defense arguments until Friday morning. The court eventually acceded to the defense request; but, as compensation to the government, allowed it a mini rebuttal the first thing Friday morning, to be followed by the second segment of the argument of counsel for each of the defendants, after all of which would come the government's rebuttal. Defense counsel's objection was overruled. The closing arguments thus proceeded as follows: on Thursday afternoon, the government presented its opening closing argument for some sixty-five minutes; this was followed by some twenty-one minutes of argument by the attorney for Reyna, then by some twenty minutes of argument by an attorney for Gomez, and finally by some thirty minutes of argument by the attorney for Gonzales. The court then, at about 5:00 p.m., recessed until Friday. Proceedings began about 9:00 a.m. Friday morning with approximately twenty-one minutes of mini rebuttal by another government attorney, followed by some thirty-eight minutes further argument by Reyna's counsel, then another some forty minutes' argument (in consecutive twenty-eight and twelve minute separate segments) by Gomez's two counsel, then some thirty minutes' argument by Gonzales's counsel, and finally followed by some twenty-six minutes of rebuttal argument by a third government attorney. 17 88 Other than conclusorily stating that allowing the government to go first and last and also to argue in the middle of defense counsel's closing arguments gives it unfair advantage, appellants point to no particular specific unfairness or prejudice to them in the ordering of the arguments, nor do they cite any authority in support of their contention. Their objection below was even more perfunctory. 18 It must be recalled that the defendants wanted to split each defendant's argument into two separate sections (instead of having the complete argument of each defendant uninterrupted by that of any other party). Appellants make (and made below) no complaint either as to the amount of time allowed or that the procedure, insofar as it deviated from the normal practice by giving the government a mini rebuttal, allowed the government to raise new arguments to which the defense did not have an opportunity to reply (or that the government's opening was inadequate or incomplete). 89 As a general rule we review comparable trial management decisions for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Leal, 30 F.3d 577, 586 (5th Cir.1994) (time allowed for closing arguments). However, Rule 29.1, Fed.R.Crim.P. (which appellants do not even cite) provides: 90 Closing arguments proceed in the following order: 91 (a) the government argues; 92 (b) the defense argues; and 93 (c) the government rebuts. 94 The Advisory Committee notes reflect that the main purpose of the rule is to ensure that the defendant knows the arguments actually made by the prosecution in behalf of conviction before the defendant is faced with the decision whether to reply and what to reply. This core interest under Rule 29.1 was not invaded here, and, while the simple order of Rule 29.1 should normally be followed, we are unable to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in this respect or that the appellants were prejudiced or treated unfairly by the order of argument. See, e.g., United States v. Cardascia, 951 F.2d 474, 485 (2d Cir.1991); United States v. Gleason, 616 F.2d 2, 25-26 (2d Cir.1979). 95 We overrule the complaint concerning the order of closing arguments.