Use of voices in legal opening statements

Chaemsaithong, Krisda

doi:10.1080/10350330.2017.1278913

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They believe there are good legal arguments and bad legal arguments and that the strength of the argument pushes the judge one way or another in choosing among plausible outcomes (Sarratt, 2004). Thus, in presenting their cases, lawyers consistently shape their talk in relation to the material being presented and to possible reaction of the audience (Chaemsaithong, 2017). The content of courtroom speeches always has certain thoughts, ideas, or arguments that need to be delivered to the trial audience.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criteria for courtroom speech cogency

Gasimov¹

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relevance of the research problem is driven by the modern discourse in legal culture and legal linguistics. Thus, the article discusses the purposes and characteristics of a courtroom speech as a subtype of public speaking, the methods, and techniques of argumentation, means of courtroom speech consistency and influence, basic techniques of verbal behaviour of a forensic orator. Thus, the qualities of courtroom speech for cogency are determined. Furthermore, the study characterizes the speech-making features of a public prosecutor as well as defense attorney and judge. The practical value is that the paper provides recommendations concerning the selection and use of language means and the prevention of speech errors.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%