After stating the plaintiff’s claim — that my client lied to him to induce him to leave his job and to join my client — I followed up with a rhetorical question, "Ask yourselves, does this make sense?" Then, I reeled off several other rhetorical questions, including, "Why would (client) take these actions?”
Never forget the power of rhetorical questions. They drive jurors to come to their own conclusions. No one likes to be told what to think.
For this closing argument, I kept refining my questions to make them progressively more focused and binary. I posed a series of questions, asking the jury which option was more likely, i.e. “Is it more likely that client lied to the plaintiff or that (I offered an option with a favorable frame for my client)?”
Then I followed up with the hindsight frame, as in "In hindsight, the plaintiff now claims. . . .” The hindsight frame is powerful because jurors identify with it; they all know someone who has engaged in hindsight thinking (never themselves, of course).
The jury was out for about three hours, but my client won.