Morales 1

Ariel Morales

Professor Madruga

ENC 1102

20 November 2019

Scholarly Article
Lawyers Presentation in Court

For revision, I expanded on further definitions for rhetoric and syntax in my theoretical
framework to help the audience that could possibly read my research. I elaborated further on a
pattern in my results section. Lastly, I added a specific example to support a statement in my
discussion section.

Introduction
Lawyers have one of the hardest jobs out there, and it requires a lot of dedication to

become one. A specific situation that I thought of looking at is how do lawyers present an

argument in a courtroom. A supporting case that I chose to use is the prosecutors’ argument from

the O.J. Simpson Trial. Being a lawyer is a community of practice because it’s all lawyers that

have the same interests. This topic analyzed how lawyers work and continue on to look at how

they present a case in court. “Musicians, lawyers, athletes, and physicians, for example, may

share certain values, language, and texts with others within their larger community, though their

first allegiance is to their specific civilization” (Johns 325 ). This statement by John is an insight

as to that lawyers are a professional community and they can share certain aspects with other

professions. There are few things that I know about lawyers when it comes to presenting their

argument during a trial. I know that you want to establish yourself as credible and be prepared

with the information you need. As well as, that the goal is to convince and win the case. Besides

that, I do not know much and I’m curious as to what it takes to be able to do that because it all

comes down to your language to present what you have.

 Morales 2

Research Questions

My inquiry focused on lawyers during a trial which brought about numerous questions,

and it’s just what exactly I want to focus on. I had a few questions that guided the main focus of

my inquiry of how do lawyers present their argument during a trial. My main question that

focused the most on writing studies is what techniques do lawyers use in order to convince the

jury? Some supporting question to help guide my research is how do lawyers prepare for this

case? How must they phrase their information to present it quickly and prove they are credible?

Lastly, what aspects makes a lawyer successful overall, compared to the opposing side and point

of views of the people. Specific questions I am going to ask myself in order to find more

information out is what is the basics of being a lawyer in order to actually get a trial. Also, how

and what things should be said in order to have a stronger argument. Another question I asked

myself is what do I think a lawyer should present in their argument to show that they are

controlling this case. Furthermore, do the lawyers think ahead for possible rebuttals and what

they should say in these scenarios. These questions can help me deepen my research in order to

find answers to the basic guiding questions I have toward my inquiry and can lead me into the

right direction when analyzing the prosecutors’ argument in the OJ Simpson case. I can look at

what the prosecutor of the case said and whether or not she lacked somewhere which caused her

to fail in convincing the jury that OJ Simpson was guilty.

Furthermore, specific questions I am planning on asking my data to find out more

information on my inquiry is what are overall opinions about lawyers. Especially, if I can look at

actual jurors from trials and how they felt about the attorneys of this case. Another specific

question is looking into the lawyer for when it comes to their past and present expectations. I
 Morales 3

personally feel there are more specific questions that I can ask my data specifically on the OJ

Simpson case. Such as what opinions came out after the case on the prosecutor? How did the

trials’ prosecutor feel of herself and team’s overall presentation of their side? One last specific

question is, how credible was the argument during the trial that didn’t convince the jury that OJ

was guilty. These are specific questions to ask my sources when looking at them to find the

information easier to further my study. It can also lead to other questions that I am currently not

thinking about which can better my research in the end.

Literature Review

The ongoing conversations relevant to my research question is analyzing techniques that

lawyers use in the courtroom. For example, in the past a representative was “asked to rank ‘the

skills of a lawyer’ in the order of importance” (Weiner 2). This is still being looked at today

because every lawyer possesses different skills that will either benefit or hurt them while

working on a trial. Many people look at the trends that are the same, and therefore, a

representative is able to pick out those that are different. The fact that a trial relies on everything

that is said, asked, and presented, it is what make this study so important. Every little factor

impacts a trial and determines if someone is guilty or innocent, which is a serious matter.

Additionally, current research looks at techniques that lawyers can include into what they know

to make themselves better. Such as “…use of persuasive communication. Persuasive delivery is a

prerequisite to jurors being open to the message…Talk directly to the jury. Make sure you're

ready to present exhibits and demonstrative evidence smoothly” (Greeley, Eriksson 1). This

could build the trust the jury has for the lawyer and show that you know how to present your

evidence. Methods that are being used to study my inquiry on how do lawyers present their
 Morales 4

argument in court, is analyzing film and while sitting in actual trial, teaching, and looking at

other lawyers for how one can improve themselves.

Furthermore, there are many different viewpoints on this conversation in writing studies

on how what one does impacts the turnout and the impressions they give off. There has been past

emphasis on the influence of organization and tone in the case. Especially, the little factors

outside of just speaking that can affect credibility such as listening or just knowing your

information. In one article, it states that, “whatever techniques you use, emphasis on direct

examination is like underlining a book…pick what is worth stressing, but do not overdo”

(McElhaney 2). This highlights the fact that every moment while in court is crucial to the

outcome. Lawyers have to be careful of what they say and how they say it. This is why I wanted

to look at the inquiry of how do lawyers present their argument in court. What the lawyers are

saying is just like writing, its’ how its presented verbally, which comes with many different

aspects and concepts. Another thing that is being looked at today is a problem that comes with

the trial. “A particularly difficult problem these days is answering an argument that is rife with

pejorative characterizations--so many that it's impossible to set the record straight on each of

them without getting down into the muck yourself” (Garner 3). I find that every aspect from just

lawyers in general to a specific trial brings out different points that are useful to many and for

future trials. To date, many educators look at past trials to see what could have been done

different while presenting in court to make the outcome better. Also, this helps future lawyers

who are still learning and want to get better.

Specifically, the OJ Simpson case, the ongoing conversation is further analyzation and

what happened and if something went wrong with the final decision. To date, there is a Netflix
 Morales 5

show called “The People vs OJ” and it contains the major aspects of the trial, as well as on ESPN

a documentary about the trial. Since OJ was acquitted, there has been a look at the prosecution

and statements that say they fumbled badly. In one article, it states that “the prosecution team

had a great case, but they never knew how to present it. They just couldn’t keep it sharp and

simple. They fumbled and fretted, continually conferring with each other” (LA Times 1). A

lawyer should have the basic principles down when presenting their case, and some feel that this

prosecution team did not possess this. Furthermore, this trial is called the ‘Trial of the Century’

because of how serious it was. Especially, for OJ to be acquitted in the end. To analyze the

prosecution presentation during this trial could open up thoughts on how what they said affected

their outcome. In another article, it is stated that “Those who believe in Mr. Simpson's innocence

will not be persuaded by the finding of civil liability. Those who believe he is guilty will find

vindication of that view” (New York Times 1). This statement explains that the information said

in the trial really affected what people believe outside of the trial. Other information that has

been put forward about my inquiry is from the prosecutor of the trial herself, saying she could

have done better in presentation in order to win the case. An argument during a case is supposed

to be strong and convince the audience and the prosecution failed with what they said according

to what they had. According to Easy Writer, “audiences can feel manipulated when an argument

tries too hard to appeal to emotions” (Lunsford 53). I chose this case to look at the prosecution

argument based on what elements I learned all lawyers should possess to effectively build the

best argument in court.

 Morales 6

Primary Research

My research question is how do lawyers present their argument during a trial. In addition

to that, I will analyze the prosecutor of the OJ Simpson case and see where she failed. There are

many possible ways to answer this question. However, I answered this question by researching

for information that talks about the skills lawyers should possess from the beginning. As well as,

how certain statements can affect how a lawyer is viewed by the jury. In addition to that, for the

OJ Simpson case, I researched for analyzation of the aspects of the trial after the verdict was

stated, which can help with concluding why the prosecutors’ argument may have failed. I had

already looked at articles that analyzed and suggested the techniques lawyers should possess in

order to function in court. There are many different views on how lawyers should formulate an

argument. This is exactly what I was looking for because then having the basis for how an

argument should be presented will allow me to analyze the O.J. Simpson prosecutors’ argument

properly. For the OJ Simpson case, I had a few already produced info I was looking at such as

articles published after the verdict was reached. As well as, actual footage from the trial, I looked

at the Netflix documentary called The People vs OJ Simpson. I collected two to three minutes’

worth of transcription from each one on pivotal moments in the trial that displays techniques of

the lawyers and another perspective of the prosecution. For the actual footage of the trial, I

looked at two videos of the prosecutor arguments. I will choose these parts based on the most

climatic points of the trial which have affected the final outcome greatly. I chose up to three to

have a basis because I have my other multimodal sources to analyze.

These already produced sources helped me further my research in answering my

question. I did not make a survey to give to others because they could help answer basic
 Morales 7

questions on lawyers’ presentation, but many around me were not alive during the trial.

Therefore, the possible information a person may have is only based on what has been presented

to them in media today. Also, I will not be looking at myself either because I am in the same spot

as other people. I collected all my data through my written and visual sources that I found in

order to formulate possible answers towards the questions. The information I gathered from my

article data in answering my first question guided the rest of my data for how I analyzed the

connected question I proposed. I was able to cross examine to see if it is somewhat similar to the

actual footage of the real trial. I took what I learned from the original articles about lawyers,

techniques and more that they should possess while in trial to form the answer to my research

question. Then I used the information to answer the question that stemmed from my original

question through the OJ Simpson case. How does the prosecutors’ presentation of her side affect

the outcome? There wasn’t any other study that inspired my data collection except the thought I

had about how speaking is just verbal writing and lawyers fit the overall reason for researching

about writing studies. Lawyers have to present information just as if they writing it down, and

the littlest thing a lawyer can say can affect different aspects that come with being an attorney

and a trial.

Theoretical Framework

The framework that I used to analyze my collected data was communities of practice. I

relied on Ann M Johns work on communities of practice the most because it focuses on

professional communities where lawyers would fall under. She states that, “every major

profession has its organization, its practices, its textual conventions, and its genres” (Johns 324).

There are many kinds of lawyers that can all connect to each other in the end to the same basic
 Morales 8

techniques that all should have. Another writing studies scholar that I used a little was Matsuda

because she states, “in today's globalized world, where the audience for writing is increasingly

multilingual and multinational, it is more important than ever to see the negotiation of language"

(Matsuda 69). Seeing the importance of negotiation of language doesn’t only apply to just

writing, it applies to writing verbally. Especially, in reference to the OJ Simpson case, when

speaking to the jury you have to take account for all of the people’s difference in language, that

is why it is best to be straightforward about what you are trying to present. I wanted to use the

framework as a guide for myself as I looked at my primary research. It will help me when I get

stuck in finding information that can fall along what the framework states. Especially, when

looking at the professional communities and what lawyers should have in common when it

comes to presenting a case, not matter what type of lawyer they are. The things that I looked for

with my framework in mind is where else in my data can I apply other concepts to help

strengthen my research because they are many possible answers, it is just what will help me the

most. I was able to reduce and analyze my data for the most important aspects that supported my

answer in the end. Such as, rhetoric, syntax, and clarity in their statements were useful to look at

when I was done transcribing the recording and documentary. Proper rhetoric can be found when

specifically, when the lawyer is trying to persuade the judge and jury. Syntax and clarity can be

identified throughout the whole thing because everyone should be able to understand what is

being said at any given time.

Data Collection

The data collection I did in order to answer the research question on how do lawyers

present their argument during a trial took a little bit of time. I started with the articles I originally
 Morales 9

found on the basic technique’s lawyers should have when presenting in court. Then I furthered

the study by looking specifically at how the prosecution’s argument failed in the OJ Simpson

case to see if the prosecutor Marcia Clark demonstrated the techniques that should be a part of a

lawyer. The articles that I collected explained the basis to have to function in court, and even

though there were multiple perspectives on how they all lead back to the overall function for an

argument to be developed properly. This basis that I collected and read through allowed me to

analyze scenes from the actual trial and episodes from the Netflix documentary as well. I picked

two crucial moments from the actual trial footage, and transcribed and coded about two to three

minutes for each. For the Netflix documentary, The People vs OJ Simpson, I chose three

moments across the ten episodes and transcribed two to three minutes of each scene in order to

analyze for techniques and language variety. I stuck to my main plan that I had proposed

originally for my primary research in order to get enough info and different perspectives to

answer the overall question.

I feel answering my overall question with a specific topic, allowed me to go further in-

depth and answer my question properly. The crucial moments that I picked to transcribed

affected the final outcome greatly because in any case, the littlest things stated can have an

impact on the final result in the end. I still had no need to make survey because it was not

necessary to get only opinions on the case based on media presentation today, because as stated

before, many around me were not born during this case. All my data collection was through

written and visual sources that I was able to connect together in order to formulate a final

answer. The information that I processed from my written text articles, I crossed examine with

the footage and videos I chose to use. My data collection consisted of myself remembering that
 Morales 10

all trials are just verbal writing, so that prompted me to know that what I am researching is

focused on presentation of what is spoken and the difference of what is said can make. The

simplest statement or mistake can make or break a case for a prosecutor. Exactly why I wanted to

look at how the OJ prosecutors case presentation affected the final outcome because in the end

OJ was acquitted. This in-depth analysis of an actual trial gives way to a further support on the

overarching question of how must lawyers present their arguments during a trial.

Results

My results yielded many possibly answers because first, not a single case is the same and

every lawyer is different. The answers I found to my overall question how do lawyers

present their argument in court varies, but first off, you have to put emphasis on what you say

and make yourself credible. Putting emphasis on what you say to make yourself credible is one

of the first patterns I found. There were multiple answers and I focused on what all the articles

had in common and connected together in some way. A main pattern I found were that they all

led back to what techniques make a lawyers’ argument credible in the first place. Lawyers should

be able to take the facts and pull them apart and decode and connect the information together

logically. As well as, present themselves and their skills in the best light based on emphasis on

what they say. This emphasis includes speaking in the proper tense, specifically present tense is

the best, and proper pauses, moving, and tones as well. It is stated that organization is key,

especially “if you have a point that is truly essential to your case, one place to put it is in the very

beginning” (McElhaney 1). In addition to emphasis, further techniques that I came across

through the articles stated that, “in your rhetoric is that you must refute the adversary’s argument

that might have made a good first impression” (Garner 1). This focuses on what you say can
 Morales 11

make yourself and side look better towards the jury because you are making statements that

establish the credits in your argument. It is all about the argumentative techniques and stakes that

you put up which will make a lawyer seem further effective. A lawyer should want to make their

stance unimpeachable by the opposing side, and this can be hard sometimes for even the best

lawyers.

Another pattern I realized throughout my article specific results is that supporting your

argument is what is most important. “For whenever a lawyer negotiates, or puts a proposition to

a client, or even when he discusses a difference of opinion with a partner, he is engaged in

advocacy-the process of trying to convince people of something, the techniques of persuasion”

(Weiner 2). Persuasion is key and trying to bring things out of the one testifying, and this can

only happen based on what you say. Being a lawyer is just verbal writing, so you still need to

speak clear and concise with advanced terminology and communication skills. This profession is

a type of communities of practice and all these lawyers could come together with the same basis

but still be different and on a different communication level. These results that I gathered now

answered my first question and then led me into the answer for my supporting question about the

O.J. Simpson trial prosecution.

For my supporting question, how did the prosecutions argument fail in the O.J. Simpson

trial. The results that I gathered from my data focused on multiple aspects such as the actual

presentation and what the prosecution said, and then the impact from the defense itself. Patterns

that I noticed across film footage is that the prosecutors had a strong case but faltered in

becoming credible against the defense. The prosecution struggled when it came to their turn, in
 Morales 12

an article I first read before watching film it was stated, that “they just couldn’t keep it sharp and

simple. They fumbled and fretted, continually conferring with each other. . . . Sometimes they

got it together, but mostly their presentation was truly pathetic; sloppy, badly organized and

rarely eloquent--even though the evidence itself was powerful” (Weinstein 2). I kept this

statement in mind when it came to actually watching film. I witnessed this fumbling in Episode 7

of the Netflix documentary, The People vs OJ Simpson. In this episode, it was a crucial turning

point of the trial. It was when O.J. was asked to try on the glove and to the prosecution it was as

if they were baffled because it was as if O.J. was acting to make the glove not fit. The other

prosecutor said that “I have nothing. I have nothing further. (To Marcia) He was... making them

not fit” (The People vs OJ Simpson Episode 7). They didn’t know how to respond in quick action

or say the right thing.

Furthermore, another instance that displays the prosecution and Marcia Clark in court and

the tactics she uses is on March 21, 1995 with the witness named Brian Kaelin. She asked,

16 Marica: ”Well, how long was that trip in Aspen in December of ‘92?”

17 Brian: “ I think seven days about. It’s — like a week.”

18 Marcia: “And did you all spend that whole week together?”

19 Brian: “Off and on, yes.”

(OJ Trial Uncut March 21,1995)

This instance keeps up with the pattern of the struggle of her presentation of her side trying to

use the witness to her advantage to build up more credibility; however, ultimately failed in the
 Morales 13

end. In this particular moment, she became very repetitive after these first statement and it was

as if she didn’t know what else to ask about when Brian first met Nicole, the wife of OJ who was

murdered. As well as the fact, people felt she stayed in the realm of getting to know the

beginning of Brian and Nicole’s friendship longer than needed to because it all started in 1992

but the murder was in 1995. Therefore, when I connect what I learn about the basis techniques

lawyers should have in court to what Marcia did. Marcia and the prosecutors, in my opinion,

weren’t as prepared as they should have been, especially with such a big case on the line;

therefore, these moments must have led to a decrease in credibility because what they are saying

and asking isn’t as communicative or proper as it should have been. It lacked focused and cause

numerous instances of stumbling I saw across my data. Especially, the evidence they had was

very strong, but presentation lacked greatly because it is as if they weren’t able to put into words

properly to show that O.J. committed the crime.

In addition to the prosecution’s argument, the defense also had such a strong influence on

the credibility of the prosecution’s argument. Below I have provided one of my data collections

sources that I transcribed and used in vivo coding to reduce the data to be understood quickly

and easily. This data is from the Netflix documentary, The People vs OJ Simpson, and it looks at

a meeting of the defensive team and what they said and important key phrases.

2 Episode 4 100% Not Guilty 1:56- 3:28

(data on next page)

 Morales 14

1 Johnnie: Black men obviously are our allies. 1 “Black men obviously are our allies”
2 Mr. Simpson, a hero in the community. 2
3 And I'm confident that people will assume he couldn't have 3
4 committed such a ghastly crime. 4
5 But black women, on the other hand, might be a problem. 5 “might be a problem” -possible problems that
could arise
6 They don't like their men marrying white girls. 6
7 Robert Kardashian: Is that true? 7
8 Christopher: Why are you looking at me? 8
9 Johnnie: Well, I... But I believe the generalization is accurate. 9 “the generalizations is accurate”
10 Black women resent successful black men marrying outside the 10 “black women resent”
community.
11 We need to limit that group. 11
12 Robert Shapiro: That analysis is smart. 12
13 The prosecution thinks they have the upper hand, but they don't. 13 “prosecution thinks they have the upper hand”
14 Because we have you. 14
15 And you know how these people think. 15
16 Johnnie "These people." 16 “These people."
17 Bob, let me give you a helpful piece of advice. 17
18 On this case, you need to choose your vernacular very, very 18 “choose your vernacular very, very carefully”
19 carefully Robert Shapiro: Mea culpa. 19
20 Okay, but the important thing is that we work together. 20
21 When we face the prelim judge, we want to come out swinging. 21 “come out swinging”
22 We concede to nothing. If Marcia Clark wants to go to the 22 “concede to nothing”
23 bathroom, we object. If they say the sky is blue, hearsay. 23
24 Nothing will be admitted without challenge and provocation. 24 “Nothing will be admitted without”

In this scene, a person even states, “on this case, you need to choose your vernacular

very, very carefully” (The People vs OJ Simpson Episode 4). This alone shows that they even

know, in order for them to win this case, they need to speak appropriately at every moment. This

furthers into the fact that what they do in the actual trial will affect the prosecution presentation.

The defensive team of this case manipulated the media and what it televised to their advantage.

They “turned what could have been any easy win for the prosecution into a not-guilty verdict.

their strategy was to make the case about the racism” (Quartz 1). They turned it too focus on

racism and not a double murder which could be definitely reasoned as why the prosecution

struggled to begin with

 Morales 15

Based on further analysis of data and the examples I have chosen, there are many other

possibilities of why Marcia and her team failed when it came to this case. However, the main

two reasons, from what I gathered, that the prosecution argument failed is that the defense even

knew they had to build their argument and how they stated it properly, which threw off the

prosecutions path. The main factor was that her team was not able to build a strong enough

argument and connect and use the basic techniques all lawyers should. They made their mistakes

which in the end, impacted the overall outcome of the trial, leading to the failure of their side.

Overall, there could be many ways for lawyers to present their argument in court because

every lawyer is different and has a different process, especially if it is tailored to what the trial is

concerning. So, feel that I answered the question in the best way possible even though there are

other answers for how a lawyer should operate and whether or not Marcia Clark’s argument

failed in the O.J. Simpson trial or media and how the tables were turned against them was the

true impact.

Discussion
My final results yielding many possibly answers, it is just how it is interpreted and

connected back to writing studies. The main patterns I saw amongst my data based on my overall

question and supporting question is the communicative skills needed to establish credibility as a

lawyer. Lawyers need numerous skills in and out of a trial in order to have strong arguments to

win the case at hand. They need to be persuasive, use proper rhetoric and terminology, and put

emphasis when and where it is needed. In addition to that, patterns with Marcia Clark and the

prosecutions’ struggle throughout the case which ultimately led to their failure was very
 Morales 16

unfortunate. The patterns that appeared with them is stumbling, not structured, and lacking quick

action. For example, this was present on many occasions when she was just asking a witness a

question and even on opening day. “He says the presentation by Clark and Darden on the trial’s

opening day had a “devastating” impact on the jury” (Weinstein 1). The presentation from the

very beginning was a struggle because as they present the case, they fumbled which had impact

throughout the rest of the trial. These patterns can contribute to the ongoing conversation in

writing studies for the professional communities, especially when it comes to being prepared

with facts and presentation. Especially, a lawyers’ vernacular should be well rounded because as

stated previously, “in today's globalized world, where the audience for writing is increasingly

multilingual and multinational, it is more important than ever to see the negotiation of language"

(Matsuda 69). One must be flexible in this realm of work because, for example with the O.J.

Simpson case, each of the jury comes from different backgrounds, the best option is to be

straightforward about information to get the point across. Getting the point across was a struggle

for the prosecution, but they were able to, but ultimately it wasn’t enough against the defense

tactics manipulating everything that is said. My framework that I chose to use helped me greatly

with connecting the overall question I proposed to the ongoing conversation in writing studies.

I feel that this trial would be a good learning tool for other lawyers to look to as an

example to see what each side did differently. As well as, how media played a major part in the

case because since then, technology has grown enormously. Future lawyers could look at where

the prosecution and defense both lacked and didn’t, and use that to their advantage to improve

themselves. There are a few possible new questions that this field of studies could think about is

if this specific crime happened today, how different would it be with all the advancements in the

world and how people speak on everything. As well as, another questions this field could think
 Morales 17

about is what improvements have already been seen in the presentation of trials and its’

vernacular and techniques compared to then and now with how far the profession has grown.

Also, in reference to the trial, what could have Marcia and her prosecution presentation been

different to have a better outcome in the end.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the overall things I discovered about being a lawyer when it comes to

presentation in court is all the things you have to consider while working. How important

credibility is and that what you say and how you say it is what makes the difference in the end.

In reference to the O.J. case, I honestly didn’t know that this case had so much that went into it

that led to the final outcome it did. I discovered multiple things and I don’t believe there are any

implications that could affect further research, except that it can be used as a learning tool for the

future about what basics techniques lawyers should have. Also, that the O.J. Simpson case can be

used as a lesson for the future, in what the best route to approach similar cases should be,

especially in today’s world because of all the advancements of technology that have come about

since 1995. A major takeaway that I found along the way that people should get from my data is

that any profession requires a lot and English and writing will always be used no matter the job.

Overall, this research was very enlightening and gave a deeper meaning and understanding for

how hard being a lawyer is and the amount of work that comes with this profession.

.
 Morales 18

Works Cited

American Crime Story, director. Episode 3 The Dream Team . Netflix The People v. O.J.

Simpson, 2 Feb. 2016.

American Crime Story, director. Episode 4 100% Not Guilty . Netflix The People v. O.J.

Simpson, 2 Feb. 2016.

American Crime Story, director. Episode 7 Conspiracy Theories. Netflix The People v. O.J.

Simpson, 2 Feb. 2016.

Andrea, Lunsford A. “Building Arguments.” Easy Writer, 6th ed., Bedford BKS St Martin’s,

2019, pp. 48–54.

Garner, Bryan A. “Point Taken.” ABA Journal, vol. 105, no. 7, 2019, pp. 32–33.

Greeley, Ann T, and Lindsay Eriksson. “Attorney Credibility in the Courtroom.” GPsolo, vol.

35, no. 1, 2018, pp. 74–75.

Johns, Ann M. “Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice.” Writing About Writing,

by Elizabeth Wardle, Beford Bks St Mar/,tin’s, 2019, pp. 319–326.

Matsuda, Paul Kei. “Writing Involves the Negotiation of Language Differences.” 2015, pp. 68–

70.

McElhaney, James W. “Emphasis on Direct.” ABA Journal, vol. 73, no. 11, Nov. 1987, pp. 116–

117.
 Morales 19

OJ Trial Uncut, director. OJ Simpson Trial - March 9th, 1995 - Part 2. Youtube, 2016.

OJ Trial Uncut, director. OJ Simpson Trial - March 21st, 1995 - Part 1. Youtube, 2016.

Staley, Oliver. “OJ Simpson's Lawyer Manipulated the Media .” Quartz, Quartz, 23 July 2017.

“The Verdict on Simpson's Story.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 Feb. 1997.

Weiner, Fredrick Bernays. “Oral Advocacy.” Harvard Law Review Association, vol. 62, no. 1,

1948, pp. 56–75.

Weinstein, Henry. “Ex-Simpson Jurors' Views Differ Sharply :Publication: In Book, Michael

Knox Says He Is Leaning toward a Guilty Verdict. But He Adds That Prosecutors Have

Fumbled Badly.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 25 June 1995.