Inflammatory rhetoric during jury argument is already grounds for objection and, in certain cases, appeal even if not objected to. While the courts are obviousl

Inflammatory rhetoric during jury argument is already grounds for objection and, in certain cases, appeal even if not objected to. While the courts are obviously having to catch up to the use of new technology -- judges have traditionally not aggressively policed openings and closings like other parts of the trial -- the rules already exist to deal with these issues. Contra your argument, I do think that the use of emotionally-targeted visual presentations are injurious to the health of a justice system that is at least ostensibly based in law and fact. While the jury system is far from perfect, it's absurd to let it descend to mockery. An inflammatory visual presentation is more memorable and emotionally-impactful than even the most impassioned speech, and it's dangerous to allow attorneys to have too-free a rein in manipulating jurors right before they head into deliberation.