Skyler Maynard

Professor Gardiakos

ENC 1102

5 April 2022

Growing up in the United States, we’re taught from a young age that one of our rights as

citizens is a “speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” This is one of the reasons the United

States is able to stand out as a democracy within the world. But, like every form of government,

it comes with its issues. The American judicial system relies on the use of an impartial third

party so that the accused is only judged based on evidence and facts brought forward during the

trial, but in reality, many factors influence the jury’s opinion and bias. One such example is the

lawyers involved, more specifically the rhetoric the lawyers choose to use. (Add a real-life

scenario perhaps) In my research, I will explore the rhetorical strategies used by prosecutors and

the influence these strategies have on juries. I will be performing my own research, asking

individuals to watch the opening statements from prosecutors in two different cases, and

commenting on how their use of rhetoric influenced their opinions while watching. I will also be

asking them to answer some follow-up questions after viewing both opening statements. With

that being said, before getting into my research, I would like to present some studies on potential

rhetorical strategies used in court, as well as an overall explanation on how the American court

system works.

Research Synthesis

The judicial system finds its roots in the legal system of ancient Greece, in which there

were two sides arguing their point to an impartial third party. In the current-day courtroom, the

impartial parties are the judge overseeing the trial and the individuals who make up the jury. The
American Bar Association explains how the American court system works, and how jury

members are selected. Jury members are selected out of a pool of randomly chosen individuals,

this part is often referred to as jury summons. These potential jury members are then put through

a process called voir dire, in which the judge and lawyers of the trial ask questions to understand

if there would be any bias or reason jurors can’t serve. After this questioning, the judge and

lawyers decide which jurors they would like to dismiss from jury duty. There are two ways

potential jurors can be dismissed by lawyers; cause and peremptory challenges. Cause refers to

dismissing individuals for a specific reason. For example, an individual would be dismissed for

cause if they had known one of the parties involved in the case prior to their jury summons. The

other way to dismiss potential jurors, peremptory challenges, refers to when lawyers choose to

dismiss people without a cause. This is used when lawyers believe the individual will not serve

with the best interest of their client in mind.

(Maybe put “The Rhetoric of Motive and Intent” by Guyora Binder here)

The first part of the trial is the opening statements of both the defense and prosecution.

The point of the opening statement is for the lawyers to outline what they plan to prove

throughout the trial, but also as a way to acclimate the jury to the case, making this an important

part of the overall trial. Persuasion in Opening Statement- Generating Interest in a Convincing

Manner by James A. Johnson, explains the importance of the opening statement, saying “The

opening statement, if presented well, should persuade, and in some instances, move the jury to

tears.” As stated before, the opening statements are the introduction of the case to the jury, but

also the introduction of the victim and alleged perpetrator. (Talk about how it would be wise to

use this opportunity to make their client look good in the eyes of the jury.)

(Talk about “Persuasion and the Opening Statement” by Abraham P. Ordover)

 Once the trial is nearing its end, the closing statements begin. This is often seen as the

lawyers’ last chance to sway the jury to see their side of the ordeal. In Pamela Hobbs’ article; Is

That What We’re Here About?: A Lawyer’s Use of Impression Management in a Closing

Argument at Trial discusses the power effective rhetoric has during this section of the trial. With

good use of language, the closing statement can change from a last-ditch attempt to being

perceived as a call to action, imploring the jury to make the right decision. (Expand on this)

(“Dangerous Deliberation: Subjective Probability and Rhetorical Democracy in the Jury

Room”)

(“The Science of Persuasion: An Exploration of Advocacy and the Science Behind the

Art of Persuasion in the Courtroom”)

Methods

To add to my research on the use of rhetoric in the courtroom, I decided to perform my

own survey. I asked a handful of people to watch the opening and closing statements of two

different prosecutors from two different trials. In my personal opinion, I believe these two

prosecutors took different approaches when it came to interacting with the jury; one with a more

emotional approach and one with a more factual, narrative approach. After watching the opening

and closing statements of both prosecutors, I asked these questions:

1. Comparing the two prosectors’ approaches to the opening/closing statements, how

would you describe the two approaches. Which one was more effective for you?

2. How would you say the prosecutors treat the jury members? If you were a jury

member, how would you feel being given this treatment?

3. Looking at the portrayal of the crime, how would you describe each prosecutor’s

description of the case? Which portrayal was more effective to you?

 4. With regard to the language used to describe the “characters” in the case (the

victims, perpetrator, witnesses, etc.), how would you say the prosecutors choose

to describe them? How does this affect your personal opinions and views on these

people?

I asked these questions because I wanted to analyze which approach was more well-

received by people. Since the topic of this research essay is rhetoric and persuasion in relation to

juries, I figured I could use the responses in comparison to the written literature on rhetoric in the

courtroom and my own observations of trials to understand why specific techniques work and

others do not.

Results

● NOT EVERYONE HAS RESPONDED YET SO I CAN’T WRITE THIS

PART

Discussion

● Will also have to wait until everyone responds

Implications

● Will write after I get everyone’s response, but here’s what I think I’ll write: factual

approach in opening statement was more effective than emotional. Probably due to it

being the jury’s first introduction to the case. The use of more emotional language though

made the jury feel more strongly toward the victim of both cases. This is probably

because it paints the accused as a monster and the victims as good people that met an

unfortunate end. The closing statement was more effective with an emotional approach

rather than factual. This is probably because all the evidence has already been said at this
 point and by taking an emotional approach, the lawyer is able to make the jury feel like

they are just as guilty as the accused if they rule in favor of the defense.

blergh