There are some lawyers who, during opening arguments, explain to the jury that their case is like a jigsaw puzzle. They take precious time explaining how the evidence comes in at different times and is not always in a clear and simple timeline.

They use the analogy that by the end of the case all the pieces of the puzzle will fit together.

The reason why using a jigsaw puzzle analogy is not ideal is because the attorney has lost precious moments discussing a framework of how cases like these work without ever discussing the facts of the case.

This analogy fails to engage the jury in understanding what the dispute is about, what the facts are, and what your position is.

Opening remarks are when the jury is most attentive and highly interested in what the claims are and why you are there.