OPENING STATEMENTS:
Individuals and teams get only one chance to make a first impression.  The opening provides the occasion for such an impression during trial.
Good openings accomplish at least five goals:
1.	Introduce names of counsel & plaintiff/defendant to the judge. 
2.	Set a professional tone for the rest of the trial.
3.	Tell a story that explains facts as the attorney understands them.
4.	Introduce names and occupations of the witnesses being called.
5.	Establish an overall theme.

Prosecution (or Plaintiff) Opening Statement.  
The prosecution/plaintiff starts the trial.  After permission to proceed is granted by the judge, you may begin our opening statement.  It is common for lawyers to say something like “Your Honor, my name is Mock-Trial-Whiz, and, together with my colleagues, Mark-Would-be-a-Lawyer, and Jane-Going-To-Law-School, I am here to represent the state in the case of People vs. Smith.  
Some attorneys prefer to open with a more dramatic statement or illustration about the case and then make their introductions, but they should make such introductions relatively early.
Note: An opening does not constitute evidence in the true sense.  A lawyer cannot testify during the opening or closing, or during directs and cross-examinations, on behalf of, or in place of, witnesses.  
Openings should not be argumentative!  What a lawyer can and should do in an opening is to tell the client’s side of the case in the form of a story, as the attorney believes it will unfold, in a clear and convincing manner.
After introducing him/herself and colleagues, an attorney might begin: 
The morning of March 18th started out as any other.  Harvey and Juanita Brown got up and helped get their children, Lisa and Henry, off to school.  Mrs. Juanita Brown went to her job as a schoolteacher, while Mr. Harvey Brown headed for his job at the Midland’s Steel Mill.  When they kissed their father and husband goodbye on that morning, Mrs. Brown and her two children never knew that they would never see him again.
But on March 18th, Mr. Brown died as a result of the negligence on the part of the Midland’s Steel Mill.  On that day, Mr. Brown was assigned to a portion of the plant with which he was unfamiliar.  As he walked into the new area, he noticed a sign saying that the government required all employees to wear hard-hats in the area.  He asked his supervisor, Mr. Bill Smith, if a hard-hat was available, but his supervisor told him that wearing a hard-hat was not necessary.
Within minutes of Mr. Brown’s arrival at his new worksite, there was an explosion from a machine that Midland’s Steel Mill had not adequately inspected or serviced. Debris struck Mr. Brown in the head, and within minutes he was dead.
We expect testimony to show that Mr. Brown died as a result of the negligence of the Midland’s Steel Mill.  The steel mill was negligent in not providing Mr. Brown with a hard-hat, in not warning Mr. Brown of the dangers of his new area of work assignment, in not inspecting its machinery, and in not keeping its machinery in a safe condition.  In order to prove this, we plan to call four witnesses …. 

Attorneys should stick to facts that they know they can establish through their own witnesses so that they do not promise more than they can deliver.  Wise attorneys will typically speak confidently about testimony that they know they can introduce through their own witnesses: “Dr. X will testify that …”  “Professor Y will prove that …”  “Expert Z will establish that …”  
By contrast, if attorneys choose to speak of testimony of their own witnesses that might be objectionable, or when attorneys refer to anticipated testimony of witnesses from the other side, the same attorneys will qualify statements with such phrases as “We expect Expert X to testify that …” or “We believe defendant Y will say that …” or “We expect that the record will show …”

Defense Opening Statement 
The defense opening statement follows.  Whenever possible, the defense opening statement should refer, if only in passing, to the prosecution/plaintiff’s opening.
Thus, the defense might begin with, “The plaintiff would have you believe that today’s case is a case about negligence.  We agree, but we don’t think the evidence shows negligence on the part of the defendant, but rather negligence on the part of the plaintiff.”  Similarly, “The prosecutor would have you believe that today’s case is a case of murder, but we believe the evidence will show it was a simple case of self-defense.”
Such statements make openings sound less “canned” and show that the defense attorneys have been paying attention.

General Rules
Courts do permit – and indeed expect – lawyers to be zealous advocates for their clients and to put the very best face on the evidence that they have on their behalf. However, ethically, lawyers must never state that they expect to establish something they know to be false or tell a story that they know to be false.
Mock Trial participants often proceed as though judges and jurors will hear and comprehend everything they say, but studies of the human capacity to comprehend suggest otherwise.  Few if any judges are likely to grasp – in a trial of only two hours duration – all aspects of a case that attorneys worked weeks to prepare, and many attorneys unintentionally leave out critical information that they falsely assume observers will know.
Accordingly, attorneys have a special responsibility to identify central points and key themes.  Attorneys can usually do this quite directly.  Thus, an attorney can say at the beginning of an opening, “Co-counsel told you that this case was about greed.  And so it is!” or “In his opening, co-counsel stated that this was a case of negligence.  I am here to show how we have established such negligence in today’s case.”
Students who announce an opening theme should stick with it.  Too often, a student attorney announces one theme and then throws out several more, suggesting that the attorney has not really thought deeply about the case.
Teams may also find it effective to use an analogy in their opening statement.  They might liken a drunken driver in his car to a loaded gun waiting to go off, or a shoddily built structure as “an accident waiting to happen.”  One potential problem with such analogies is that the other team can sometimes turn them around:  “The plaintiff would have you believe that the defendant was an accident waiting to happen; we will argue instead that he was simply a sitting duck for a money-hungry plaintiff who knew how to fake an injury.”
The more tailored a theme is to a specific case, the better it is.  Attorneys should take special care to avoid generic themes – notable offenders are: “This case is a puzzle”, or “This is a case of smoke and mirrors”, or “We are going to present you with a roadmap.” Some judges will actually deduct points for such uncreative analogies.
Openings may be assertive, but they should not be argumentative.  It is especially important for attorneys not to spend too much time in characterizing witnesses from the other side that they have yet to hear.  Such characterizations may or may not ring true with the manner in which the other team plays such characters.
Most characteristics of good public speaking apply to the opening statement, and to the closing argument.  Some of the most important rules include the following:
1.	Maintain eye contact with judges and/or jury members.
2.	Speak in a measured pace in a clear calm voice
3.	Vary voice inflections
4.	Avoid pacing or other distracting mannerisms. 
Some judges will specifically ask attorneys to stand behind the podium, and attorneys should, in any event, ask permission before venturing out from behind it.
Usually, attorneys find that a direct conversational tone is more effective than loud, florid rhetoric.  Attorneys need to speak loudly enough for judges to hear them clearly, but in a small room attorneys must avoid blasting the judges out of their seats.  Attorneys who employ an overly earnest tone throughout an entire opening are typically less effective than those who vary their tone to stress key points.  Students should avoid a monotone presentation at all costs!
Student attorneys should resist trying to squeeze as many words as they can within a short time span.  Attorneys who speak at breakneck speed will likely find that judges will remember little of what they said.  Attorneys who speak in a clearly audible but conversational tone and emphasize highlights of their case are much more likely to convey confidence and keep the judge’s attention.
Be well versed in the rules of English grammar – attention to subject/verb agreement, correct use of pronouns, verb tenses and uses.  Distinguish “lie” and “lay”, the use of verbs such as “have” and “had”  Never say “have went”, but “have gone”.  Know the plural of the word “criterion” (criteria).  Properly pronounce difficult words.  
Like poor grammar, excessive use of notes signals a hastily written or poorly conceived opening.  Ideally, attorneys should memorize their openings.  If granted permission, an attorney may even want to move in front of the podium without notes in order to emphasize such preparation to the judge.  If you can’t memorize an opening or closing, you should not be doing it.
Always act in a courteous manner.  No profanities like “hell” or “damn” or saying your opponents’ arguments are “inane” or “B.S.”, etc.  Vulgarity undermines your credibility and demonstrates a lack of self-control.