if it’s not based on facts in evidence it’s onekctionable. Now opposing counsel doesn’t have to object, but they canGranted that they can have an effect on a jury, but you can ask any lawyer in this country. Closing arguments don't even HAVE to be based on fact. The lawyer can tell you the sky is purple if he so desires. The trial is closed and he is just trying to influence opinion. All lawyers will try to nuance the facts of the trial--but nothing they say in closing HAS to be true.Closing arguments have to be based on facts that are in evidence.You don't know what you are talking about. Closing arguments don't even have to be true and many times are not. They are the lawyer's last pitch at the jury. The trial ends when both sides rest their cases which is BEFORE closing arguments. Keep running your mouth, your ignorance shows more every time you do.Spoken by someone with zero real world experience of trial - or someone incapable of grasping how trials work. Sure closings don’t matter - that’s why argument at trial was long ago abolished.
FYI, most defenses at trial hinge utterly on the defense attorney’s ability to spin the evidence and appeal to emotion in closing. You think you’re being cute, but Chauvin’s best hope at acquittal or a hung jury/mistrial was Nelson’s closing.
The evidence is closed, when cases are rested, but the closing arguments can certainly impact the jury