Courtroom Rhetorical Analysis

The State of Ohio vs. Nickolas Brooke
Jury Selection, Fist Degree Assault
11/3/04
Lawyers consistently use rhetoric to achieve a means to an end. In the use of rhetoric, lawyers appeal to the five cannons to influence or understand their target group of individuals. These five cannons are invention, dispositio, elocutio, and memoria. These five cannons are a technical strategy, which facilitate the lawyer’s ability to select an honorable jury. The defense wants to discover which jury member’s posses a bias either for or against the defendant. The prosecution (State of Ohio) wants to find an unbiased jury, which will resolve the case in a speedy and fair manner. Therefore, in jury selection, the defense wants to select a jury with a bias favoring the stance of the defendant and; where as, the prosecution is searching for an unbiased selection of jury members.
These lawyers, as tactfully as possible, use invention in a simple manner. The prosecution, Dave Mallet, asks unique questions to obtain the answers they desire. He employs inartistic proofs about the laws and the legal process. For example, the prosecution asked the jury members if they had witnessed any prior assaults. At the same time, the prosecution asks whether any of the members have been victims of an assault. By asking these relevant questions, Mr. Mallet searches for members with any bias against assault laws. Essentially, the prosecution wants to know if any jurors feel that the law is unjust and illegitimate. Therefore, the prosecution will be able to choose an unbiased body.
On the other hand, the defense is using artistic proofs such as ethos to select a jury favorable for the defendant. The defense, Eric Allen, asked the jurors about any previous assaults they knew about. He then proceeded to ask how they feel about those incidents of violence. The defense attorney specifically asked several jurors if they felt any bias against the defendant. By questioning the ethos of the jurors, the defense attorney is indirectly using artistic proofs to assist in jury selection. The lawyer’s questions ask if jurors have any preconceived bias that would hinder the resolution of a fair and speedy trial for the prosecution, or an unfair bias for the defendant.
In such a simple method of jury selection, the lawyers are organized and systematic in their methods. Both, the defense and prosecution, exhibited beneficial organization that assisted them greatly. The lawyers used a logical progression of questioning. Initially, the lawyers stated the problem, which was selecting a jury to their liking. Secondly, they presented their stasis by asking the jurors bias related questions. Due to the fact that it was a jury selection, the lawyers did not need to present the confutation because in such a process there exists no refutation. As for the peroration, the lawyers allowed jurors the opportunity to remove themselves from the case. However, the lawyers did so in a methodical manner. The lawyers asked if the jurors in fact would not be able to give a fair verdict. This would deny them the right to be a jury member. Therefore, both lawyers successfully used dispositio to select an honest and fair jury.
As for style, both the defense and prosecution used a similar technique just in a different manner. Both lawyers opened their questioning using humor. The prosecuting attorney stepped to the stand telling the jurors “that this is not Law & Order and you will be witnessing legal mistakes.” However, the prosecuting attorney altered his tone into a demanding disciplinarian. He lost the humorous presence, and his style changed dramatically. No longer was he carefree, instead he was very diplomatic with a strong presence. He failed to use a rhetorical style in his approach. Without the assistance of any style, Mr. Mallet failed to obtain the responses he desired. This style was a poor choice and it essentially alienated the lawyer from the jurors. The jurors lost contact with the lawyer, which placed him at a disadvantage.
As for the defense attorney, he was able to maintain his connection with the jurors through passive and sympathetic tones. After joking about the “double dose of democracy” (election and jury duty) the jurors were experiencing, the lawyer employed a soft, slow, and pensive manner. Although some lawyers might view this as weak, this lawyer successfully extracted honest thoughtful responses. This method of rhetorical pleasing is the middle style of rhetoric. By being sensitive to the demands of the jurors, Mr. Allen used aequabile to extract the answers he wanted. This middle style is rhetorically helpful when one relies upon third party answers. By choosing a thoughtful and sensitive style, this lawyer successfully uses the third cannon to achieve his goals.
The last cannon, speech, was one of the main benefits to the prosecution. The prosecuting attorney had a very loud dominating voice. His pronunciation was flawless, his presence was felt, and he was heard throughout the forum. This is an advantageous skill to any lawyer. The jurors listened to the lawyer attentively and carefully responded to each question that was directed to them. As mentioned before, the defense had a very soft, quiet, and mundane presence. Although his speech assisted him stylistically, his speech was generally poor. At the beginning of the questioning, the jurors in the back demanded he raise his voice. Throughout the proceedings, many jurors struggled to hear his questions regardless of their nature. This disrupted the questioning and inhibited the jurors in answering honestly and accurately. Unlike previous cannons, the prosecuting attorney manipulated speech to work in his advantage.
These five cannons are techniques that are designed to assist lawyers. By using the five cannons accurately, lawyers were able to select a jury they desired. As stated, earlier the lawyers wanted different jurors; therefore, the lawyers utilized particular cannons that would benefit their strategy. These attorneys varied their speech, style, and invention to benefit their selection process. Through careful application of five cannons, the lawyers could create a rhetorical advantage against the other lawyer.

Newark Court Case Narrative

Newark Town Square, at nine o’clock on this bleak November day, is a concrete wasteland at best. Lonely leaves wisp around in individual tornadoes. It is the leaves congregating with the dirty McDonalds paper bags that populate this area. At best it is a lifeless post industrious town where the life has been sucked out through an invisible vacuum. The hustle and bustle of a post Election Day is non-existent. The icy breeze smacking your face broadside is the lone sensible indicator of existence. No longer does the warm smell of café-brews permeate through the square. No longer do the entrepreneurs and financiers stream through the streets like white blood cells in defense of ones immune system. No longer does the retched scent of exhaust fill the nostrils. No longer does the midmorning shift ring through the streets of the post-industrious town. No longer does life breathe in this forsaken land.
The tyranny of rule, sentencing, and control bleed from the towering infrastructure presiding in the center of the square. The architecture of Angkor Vat reciprocates itself in the brutal construction of the courthouse. Unlike one circumambulating the Buddhist monastery in respect for divinity, innocent Samaritans are swallowed by this legal brothel. The dark tower stands out against the dark cloud like a lighthouse amidst a cold arctic nor’easter in Nova Scotia. Clouds, like the barren leaves, circumnavigate the selfish tower. Wind billows and light shatters against the piercing obelisk. Panning the Newark metropolis, the towers shines its oppressive light searching for the failing remnants of life. Criminals it does not beckon, justice it does not desire, yet life is what it intends to extract. Regardless, it fails.
A straggler late for his morning shift sprints across the dying green grass. The echoes of his footsteps and the bells on the door resonate throughout the square. Alas, the lights changed like the last beat of waning heart. On the last beat, the cars inch forward lacking any progressive notion. No longer is the emptiness of stores hidden beneath the blinking glare. The stories of days gone by are exhibited across the windows, a gallery of ancient newspaper. Finally, the barracks of law beckons as proceedings begin.
The dreary faux-marbled walls blur the imagination. A sole attendant stands at the juvenile court desk. However the oppressive courts reside a flight higher. Friends, relatives, and participants wait beyond the courtroom doors patiently expecting it to be their time. The pale shading of the door inhibits all stares directed toward the courtroom. All attention is paid to these doors. All eyes focus upon the doors. All emotion relies upon these doors. Mystery blushes in the windows as an evil temptress testing the will of all those affected. Obsession will not define this attention; for unapparent reasons, Samaritans quake at the sight of these doors. Not the Colt .45 strapped to the side of an obese Trooper, not the snide witty glare of over paid lawyers, or the legal documents carried by an underpaid public worker; but these doors infect fear amongst everyone involved, except one.
Only the lawyers, bailiff, order, and deputy of courts walk comfortably through their courtroom. Truly, these individuals have found a home. Amongst the synthetic geometric walls, the lawyers await their deliberation. An uncomfortable defendant slouches in his chair looking towards the audience. Cautiously he stirs as a balding anorexic man struts past him, a blazing parole officer, a ward of the state and a comrade of the people. A gentleman sucked into the tyrannical bureaucracy of the plagued courthouse. Once a paradise of justice, it is a Wall Street for the legal world. Each case is just another share to be bought and sole at their heartless discretion.
Meanwhile, a single file line of prisoners is dragged through the pitiless courtroom doors. A hidden sigh of relief expels itself as each prisoner steps through the door. Why the minute exclamation of joy, once they have entered these suppressive chambers. A diplomatic bailiff seats them in their respective alphabetical chairs. These jurors obliviously settle into their chattering benches. The dull conversations of employees are muted as the benches squeak under the straining weight of those awaiting the selection process. Silence calls attention to all as everyone simultaneously adjusts himself or herself. Banter and bench acoustics muffled by the ensuing anticipation. A man orates senseless garble translated by all as they rise in unison.
A greaseless hinge screams about the room while an aged man enters yielding his black façade. He is now an absent man, of feeling, sympathy, and emotion. Once a justice, he is now a submissive servant to the constitutional powers of the state. Created for the benefit of democracy, these letters words and amendments grant him dictatorial powers. A protector of the peace no longer, suddenly he has become a disciplinarian of his own accord. Distributing bails and sentences like a traffic cop issuing meter fines. None seem to fear this perilous judge. Staring blankly at the judge, the defendant seems to sense something beyond the omnipotent control of the judge. Something intangible engrained in the judges power captivates the defendant’s attention. All others appear oblivious to this power, only the defendant seems aware.
He is sucked into the threats imposed by the position. The bland lacquer seal boasts its power. It is the legal power bridled by the judge, which posses the defendant. It is not his mindless power, but the limitless power entrusted to him. All else is lost, as the jurors, lawyers, and employees neglect the defendant. The power this judge will abuse is the power that frights only the defendant. He stares mindlessly usurped into the frightening strength of his illegitimate power. Like the leaves wisped into the individual tornadoes this defendant will be swallowed into the tyrannical whirlpool of the unjust legal system.

"interaction's Positioning and Narrative Self-Construction"

Initially, Jane tells her life narrative in a manner that is self destructive. She describes herself in a damaging scenario. She illuminates the personal abuse she suffered throughout the constructive years of her life (age 5-15). In telling her narrative, Jane concentrates on the abuse she suffered. She places herself at the heart of the story, and she essentially places blame on herself for all the trauma she experienced. By taking command of her narrative, Jane is able to shift the blame and the nature of the story and free herself from the endured problems. In the diagrams shown in the reading, Jane is able to dictate the story in a different and much more beneficial manner. In her previous narrative, Jane annexes all of her relations, family, and friends. She solely concentrates on the abuse she endured at her Irish boarding school. Jane is only able to relate the abuse she felt to the narrator. Jane neglects her mother, involves selfish Mr. Mcgee, and only focuses on the negative aspects of her life. Finally when Jane "acts to defend herself", she dictates the story in an entirely different way. Jane begins to describe herself as active and assertive. She instead annexes the abuse she underwent as a youth. She does not disregard it, but she takes command of the incidents and describes her personal transformation. In doing so, Jane highlights the changed relationship she has with her family. This shows how Jane has adapted to the developing story and is able to dictate her narrative in a personally appeasing manner. By highlighting her transformation, annexing the abuse, conveying family sympathy, and acting assertive Jane is able to construct herself anew by repositioning herself in her own story.

"Foucault and Governmentality"

The current disciplinary society is retold by a new author because of three premises. The three premises are the criminal questioning, collective opinion, and social correctional facilities. First, all criminals are subjected to questions by foreign agents. These foreign agents are not always searching for a reevaluation of the story in question. Rather, they try to draw upon specific aspects of the story that best support their angle. In doing so, agents will ask questions that will often have little to do with the crime in question. Often, this disallows the criminal to defend him or herself. Although the criminal is allowed some personal defense, the criminal is not able to personally dictate the narrative. Instead, the foreign agent highlights certain aspects of the story that often support his or her angle. This is already significant enough to prove that the story is told by another author. Secondly, as seen in the judicial deliberations during class, the opinions are formed by a third party. Again further foreign opinions are involved in the story, as the justices or jury deliberate on the case. This affects the nature of the story by adding another party that has extreme influence upon the story. This is yet another example of foreign influence upon a persons story. Thirdly, individuals are now placed in correction facilities or correctional programs to help correct the problem instead of punish. This reshapes the individuals lives and mannerism. Rather than simply punish the person for their act, the system tries to change the person and correct the issue at hand. Therefore, correctional facilities intervene and begin to dictate the future of ones life. Lastly, the questioning by foreign agents and the deliberation by the third party effectively force the story to be told by a new author.