Closing the Circle
Turning Jurors Toward the Frequency of Solution
Every closing argument is a crossing. Jurors have walked with you through weeks of testimony, detail, and disruption. They have heard the rupture. They have felt the harm. But when the lawyer rises for closing, the task is no longer to circle the problem—it is to carry the jury toward the solution. Abraham Hicks put it this way: “The problem is a different vibrational frequency than the solution.”
Closing is the moment of transition. To remain stuck in the frequency of the problem is to fatigue jurors, to leave them stranded in despair without a map forward. But to shift into the frequency of the solution is to ignite movement—toward justice, toward repair, toward verdict. Neuroscience tells us this is essential: when people are left in unresolved problem states, their brains default to avoidance and detachment. But when they are shown a path forward, dopamine and oxytocin circuits engage, and the story closes with connection.
Moreno’s lens confirms this: roles must evolve. The plaintiff cannot remain trapped as Problem-Holder; the jurors cannot remain frozen as spectators. In closing, the lawyer invites jurors to step into the role of Finder of Truth, Restorer of Balance, Deliverer of Justice. The roles themselves are solution-frequency roles, carrying energy beyond harm.
Sociometry also teaches us that jurors make choices based on vitality. A closing argument stuck in loss breeds disengagement. A closing that shows jurors their role as healers of rupture creates attraction—they want to belong to the solution. BTC teaches that this is not only strategy but necessity: the Story Spine demands resolution. If the lawyer leaves the jury at “Because of that…,” the story remains unfinished. Closing must deliver the “Until finally…”
Didactic Section for Closing
1. Shift Attention
In closing, acknowledge the rupture briefly but pivot quickly. Jurors already know the harm. The task is to redirect attention to what can now be done—the solution they hold in their hands.
2. Frequency of Justice
Frame the verdict not as an abstract legal form but as the vibrational frequency of restoration. Remind jurors: their choice has the power to shift the story from despair to dignity.
3. Role Expansion for Jurors
Invite jurors into expanded roles: “You are not just hearers of testimony; you are the voice of justice. You are the ones who can restore balance.” Give them an identity aligned with solution.
4. Social Atom of the Courtroom
Show jurors that their verdict radiates outward. It is not only about plaintiff and defendant—it affects families, communities, future cases. This enlarges their sense of solution-frequency.
5. Closing as Transformation
End not with a repetition of harm, but with a call to transformation: “This verdict does not erase what happened. But it brings truth. It restores dignity. It begins healing.”
The 5 W’s of Closing: Problem vs. Solution
Who
The “who” in closing argument is not just the plaintiff or the defendant—it is the jurors themselves. Up until now, they have been witnesses to the story, passive receivers of testimony, note-takers in silence. But in closing, their identity shifts. They are no longer bystanders; they are the storytellers who decide how this narrative ends. They are called into roles they did not choose, yet roles only they can fulfill: truth-finder, healer of rupture, restorer of balance. The lawyer’s task is to help them see themselves as more than evaluators of evidence—they are the ones who carry the story across the threshold into justice.
What
The “what” is the verdict itself. A verdict is not just a legal formality or a checkbox on a jury sheet—it is the concrete embodiment of solution-frequency. It is the act that transforms all the words, facts, and emotions into a living resolution. The “what” is the jurors’ decision that says: we see the harm, we acknowledge the rupture, and we choose to respond with restoration. In civil cases, this may mean financial damages; in criminal cases, it may mean accountability or acquittal. The verdict is more than paperwork—it is the moral punctuation at the end of the story.
When
The “when” is not tomorrow, not someday, but now. Jurors sit at the moment of crossing, holding the power to either remain in the problem or to bring the case into solution. Closing must make this immediacy palpable. Weeks of trial have prepared them, but now the decision lies before them in real time. The urgency of “when” is the heartbeat of closing: if they leave the room unchanged, the problem remains unresolved. If they act here and now, justice breathes again. Timing is critical—not just chronologically, but psychologically. This is the moment of transformation, and it will not come again.
Where
The “where” is layered. Externally, it is the courtroom, a space where the rituals of law give shape to justice. But internally, the “where” is in the nervous system of each juror. Fear, doubt, and empathy compete inside them. The lawyer must help jurors locate themselves: “You are not deciding in some abstract legal vacuum. You are here, in this room, in this community, with this responsibility.” The courtroom becomes both stage and mirror, where jurors see themselves not just as decision-makers, but as participants in the unfolding story of justice.
Why
The “why” is the soul of closing. Why does this verdict matter? Not because it erases the harm—that is impossible. Not because it punishes or rewards mechanically—that is too small. The “why” is that without their action, the rupture continues unhealed. The “why” is that justice relies on jurors to speak when individuals cannot, to restore dignity where it has been denied, to ensure that the story does not end in despair. This is why jurors exist: to take the problem, which is heavy with suffering, and to move it into the solution, which restores life and balance. The “why” gives meaning to their verdict, transforming duty into purpose.
Demo-Action for Closing Prep
Role Reversal Rehearsal
In preparation, have the lawyer step into the role of a juror hearing the closing. From that seat, ask: “Do I feel stuck in the problem, or am I being invited into the solution?” Return to lawyer role, adjust language, and repeat until the closing carries jurors across the threshold.
Focus Group Closing Test
Deliver two versions of closing: one circling the harm, one oriented toward solution. Ask mock jurors: “Which argument made you feel more empowered to act?” Their feedback will confirm that solution-frequency inspires commitment.
Conclusion
Closing argument is not a summary. It is not a rehearsal of harm. It is the act of tuning the jury to a higher frequency—the frequency of solution. Jurors are weary of the problem by the time they reach deliberations. What they need is direction, courage, and an identity aligned with justice.
BTC teaches that the lawyer is the first storyteller, but the juror is the final storyteller. Their verdict is the “Until finally.” When we invite them into solution, we not only strengthen our case—we restore the sacred role of the jury itself.
“The problem is a different vibrational frequency than the solution.” Closing is where we give jurors the invitation to shift frequencies, and in so doing, to write the story of justice.
References
Moreno, J. L. (1946). Who Shall Survive? Beacon House.
Moreno, Z. T., & Moreno, J. L. (1969). Psychodrama: Volume 3. Beacon House.
Johnson, L. E. (2025). Building The Case: Storytelling When Facts Are Fixed and Stakes Are High. Trial Whisperer Press.