Manipulative silence and social representation in the closing arguments of a child sexual abuse case

Abstract

In this article, I first propose a methodology for the analysis of closing arguments in criminal trials, an understudied linguistic genre, that can be used to expose how lawyers take the same defendant, victim, and evidence and linguistically create opposing discursive representations of the case. Using the theoretical insights of Van Leeuwen (2002), Halliday (1994), and Huckin (2002), I critically examine how the main social actors are referred to, how the processes or actions those actors took part in are referenced, and what topics are included and silenced by each side to see how lawyers are systematically creating di¤erent representations of reality. Using the analysis of the arguments presented in a sexual abuse case, I show that the lawyers in this particular case are constructing di¤erent models of the case not by contradicting each other but through their control of what is included in their argument and how the social actors and their actions are depicted.

Names and Identities in Courtroom Narratives

“…Defendant Lee Boyd Malvo) in order to "distance [themselves] from" that witness (O'Barr 1982, 34), while only first names are recommended for personalizing purposes. Examining the closing arguments of a rape case, Rosulek (2008) finds that the prosecution refers to a victim with a nickname, while the defense uses her full first and last name. It is argued that the nickname functions as a diminutive.…”

“…In contrast, names are frequently used to refer to the victims, thereby "bringing them, as individuals, into the jurors" focus (138). Similarly, Rosulek (2008Rosulek ( , 2015 finds that in closing arguments the prosecution references the defendant more frequently than the defense does, and the defense sometimes silences or erases the defendant from their discourse. In addition, while the prosecution refers to the person on trial as "the defendant", the defense lawyer foregrounds the unique identity of the defendant by often using semi-formal or formal nominations, thereby calling attention to the defendant as a real person.…”

‘It was him’: Representational strategies, identity, and legitimization in the Boston Marathon bombing trial narratives

“…Focusing on closing statements, Rosulek (2015) finds that the prosecution foregrounds the defendants and their agentive roles in the crime more than the defence does, and that the defence includes less and different information about the victims. Analysing a sexual abuse case, Rosulek (2008: 538) reports that the prosecution refers to the victim with a nickname, e.g. ‘Lizzy’, while the defence uses her full name and last name.…”

“…Lawyers also refer to the victim’s body parts as an object that is touched, instead of the individual being the recipient. This makes the description of the abuse more specific and detailed (Rosulek, 2008: 541).…”

“…Chief among the vast repertoire of strategies lawyers can manipulate to influence the judge/jury’s perceptions and (non-)affiliation are the ways in which characters and events are represented in courtroom narratives (Adelsward et al, 1988; Cecconi, 2008; Rosulek, 2008). These choices, collectively called ‘representational strategies’ (Fowler, 1991; Van Dijk, 1993; Rosulek, 2008; Khosravinik, 2010), refer to the selection of words describing persons and events that are congenial to the story version claimed and supported by the speaker, the ‘fitting of words to deeds’ (Danet, 1976). These mechanisms allow lawyers to not only highlight, silence or contest aspects of the identity of characters in their narratives, but also to position them in relation to each other by portraying them as exercising (or lacking in) agency, power and control over another actor, thereby indicating responsibility (or lack thereof) for such acts.…”