The Art of Persuasion in the Courtroom: A Reflection on Courtroom Rhetoric, Possible Risks and Technological Advancements
https://doi.org/10.17803/2713-0533.2024.4.30.843-859
Abstract
This paper explores the intricate relationship between classical rhetoric, legal rhetoric and the inherent risks faced by advocates during courtroom speeches. It delves into the fundamental principles of persuasive communication within legal contexts and legal discourse, examining how choice of language, structure, tone and voice level can significantly influence trial outcomes and perceptions pf decision-makers and the audiences. The analysis highlights various rhetorical strategies employed by advocates while also addressing potential pitfalls, including the risk of misinterpretation, emotional overload, and the lack of trust on behalf of a judge. Through case studies and expert insights, the paper provides a comprehensive understanding of how effective rhetoric can navigate the complexities of legal discourse while mitigating associated risks. Ultimately, it aims to equip advocates with the necessary tools to enhance their representation practices within the courtroom setting.
About the Authors
P. E. Marcheva
Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Polina E. Marcheva, Cand. Sci. (Law), Associate Professor, Department of Advocacy
Moscow
N. M. Golovina
Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Natalia M. Golovina, LL.M. (International & Business Law), Senior Lecturer, Department of International Moot Courts and Mock Trials
Moscow
References
1. Abramova, N.A., Golovina, N.M. and Marcheva, P.E., (2023). Rhetoric for Lawyers: Bilingual Course. Moscow: Prospect Publ. (In Russ.).
2. Alexander, A.E., Tellner, C.J. and Norwood, H.E., (2024). Algorithms in Private Health Insurance Litigation: The Precursor to AI? Blumberg Law website. Available at: https://www.bloomberglaw.com/external/document/XD8PLKV8000000/health-care-operations-complianceprofessional-perspective-algor [Accessed 01.12.2024].
3. Alexandrov, D.N., (2003). Fundamentals of oratory skills, or in pursuit of Cicero. Moscow: Flinta Publ. (In Russ.).
4. Bespalova, N.B., (2011). Advocate’s Speech in the Judges’ Eyes. Pravorub website (Professional Association of Lawyers and Advocates). Available at: https://pravorub.ru/articles/13570.html [Accessed 08.12.2024]. (In Russ.).
5. Frost, M., (1999). Introduction to classical legal rhetoric: a lost heritage. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 8, pp. 613–637.
6. Hunter, S.T., (2024). The Modern Trial: Best Practices for Using Technology at Trial Through the Eyes of a Trial Technician. American Bar Association (ABA) website. Available at: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/newsletters/commercial-business/best-practices-for-using-tech-at-trial/ [Accessed 01.12.2024].
7. Ivakina. N.N., (2006). Osnovy sudebnogo krasnorechiya [Foundations of trial Advocacy]. Rhetoric for Layers. Moscow: Jurist Publ. (In Russ.).
8. Leonetti, C. and Bailenson, J., (2010). High-Tech View: The Use of Immersive Virtual Environments in Jury Trials. Marquette Law Review, 93, pp. 1073–1120.
9. Malyukova, O.V., (2023). The Logical Foundations of the Legal Rhetoric Laws. Lex russica, 76(9), pp. 121–132, doi: 10.17803/1729-5920.2023.202.9.121-132. (In Russ.).
10. Nozhin, E.A., (1978). The art of public speaking. Moscow: Politizdat Publ. (In Russ.).
11. Perelman, Ch. and Olbrecht-Tyteca, (1991). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press.
12. Voronov, A.A., (2013). System Approach to Legal Profession Research and Sciences about Legal Profession. Eurasian Advocacy, 1(2), pp. 135–140. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Marcheva P.E., Golovina N.M. The Art of Persuasion in the Courtroom: A Reflection on Courtroom Rhetoric, Possible Risks and Technological Advancements. Kutafin Law Review. 2024;11(4):843. https://doi.org/10.17803/2713-0533.2024.4.30.843-859
Views:
277
Email this article 
