Analytical Approach to Courtroom Drama

There comes times in people’s lives when they are faced with challenges. These challenges may be physical or intellectual; they may be relatively inconsequential or life altering. Lawyers are faced with challenges, everyday, that directly impact the lives of the people they represent, as well as the future state of our society. While consequences and potential ramifications vary from case to case, in each case, it is essential for the competent attorney to utilize the age old skills of rhetoric to defend his client in an effective manner. First and foremost, the client and attorney must at all times remain calm and composed. Even when things are not going properly, they must maintain their composure in order to convey the proper ethos to the judge or jury. Furthermore, the lawyer must be able to support his case with reliable facts and sound logic. If the defendant has a gun in his hand that matches the bullet that was found in a victim, there is little use in attempting to persuade anyone that his client did not pull the trigger. Finally, the lawyer, as an effective advocate, must be able to create an empathetic view toward his client by conveying his pathos.

Now, we look at a case in the Municipal Court of Hamilton County. In this case, attorney, Bruce Hoffman, attempts to defend his son, Andrew, against the charges brought against him. The prosecution asserts that Andrew is guilty of illegally entering a public street from a drive or parking lot, while Andrew pleads not guilty. Through the duration of this case, Hoffman will attempt to demonstrate that while, yes, Andrew did pull out in front of a moving vehicle, there was no better alternative option. The facts clearly do show that, technically, Andrew is at fault for pulling out in front of a moving vehicle. However, the case will turn on whether or not Andrew should be held responsible under the particular circumstances of this case.

Hoffman’s opening statement clearly evokes a sense of empathy toward his son. By mentioning that he is his client’s father, Hoffman makes it very clear that he accepted this case for no other reason than to help his son. There is no financial reward, and no hope for fame. Moreover, Andrew may have chosen his father to represent him in trial to help sway the mood and appeal to any empathy that may be available in the judge. In addition, in his opening statement, Hoffman clearly asserts that while, technically, the law dictates that the party who emerges from a driveway into moving traffic will be held at fault, there have been cases in which the defendant has been found not guilty. Hoffman draws an analogy to a case in Granville, Ohio in which a man driving a car pulled out from a side road on to Granville Road. He did not see the approaching car coming because it was a very foggy morning. While technically, the man entering onto Granville Road should be held responsible, the judge ruled in his favor because of the extenuating circumstances: the fog made it impossible to see the approaching car. Similarly, Hoffman asserts that he is prepared to show extenuating circumstances in his case that made it impossible for his son, Andrew, to detect the presence of an approaching vehicle.

In providing a logical proof for his assertion, Hoffman presents a series of pictures taken the day after the accident. These pictures are taken from car level to show that it is impossible for the driver to see either direction up or down the road because of large vehicles parked on either side of the drive. One area in which the prosecution could have countered was by asserting that these pictures were not taken the day of the accident and thus the size of the vehicles may have changed since the time of the accident. However, the prosecution missed that opportunity. Instead, they viewed the pictures as a fairly conclusive depiction of the scene of the accident.

Instead of providing a counter example, the prosecution moved to recess in order to discuss the modification of the charges with Hoffman and his client. This action clearly reveals that the prosecutor is exhibiting a feeling of discontent and discomfort. He was not portraying the ethos of a calm collected attorney, sure he would win his case. The Judge heard the prosecutor’s request and adjourned the court.

Mr. Hoffman saw this as his opportunity to win the case. He maintained his calm and collected ethos. He reviewed the photographs with the prosecutor one by one in a closed environment and said, “As you can see there was no way Andrew could have avoided this. He checked several times visually. He had his window down and was unable to hear anything because of the noise coming from construction slightly down the way. Thus, the accident was unavoidable. Andrew has never had any traffic violations in his four years of driving. I am sure one will agree this shows that he is an excellent driver.”

With this statement, Hoffman is attempting to do several things.
He is strengthening his inductive proof that Andrew is not at fault and also he is attempting to enhance any pathos the prosecutor may have for Andrew. By repeating his points about the pictures and the accident being unavoidable he is using a rhetorical strategy that will help further drive home the point that the accident was unavoidable. The final part of his argument shows that Andrew is a good driver which not only draws pathos to Andrew but also weakens any thoughts or allegations that Andrew may have been operating his vehicle in a careless manner.

Aware of his situation the prosecutor offers to maintain the charges but reduce the penalties to no points on Andrew’s license and a small monetary fine. This change of position is an attempt to accomplish two things. He is hoping to judge how confident Hoffman is in his case, as well as, attempting to show he still feels he may have a case. However, sensing this testing of the water, Hoffman makes the bold assertion that all charges should be dismissed. This keen sense of Kairos allowed Mr. Hoffman to sense the exact moment when to request a dismissal of the charges. Realizing the judge would probably rule in Mr. Hoffman’s favor in light of the situation the prosecutor agrees to drop all charges.

The consequences of this case were relatively small and the facts allow for a simple proof of the correct ruling. However, the cases that are more complicated require the use of many more rhetorical techniques. In many cases there are no witnesses and only limited evidence. Thus, the attorneys must rely on their own wits and mastery of rhetorical skill in order to prove their case. While it may be very difficult to create a proof, they may be able to construct a scenario of a situation through the use of deductive or even inductive reasoning. Thus, attorneys must be able to rely on rhetorical strategies of ethos and pathos. Various persuasive techniques are used with the objective of creating empathy for the defendant in order to try to sway the jury in the defendant’s favor. Thus, it is essential for anyone in the legal field to possess strong rhetorical skills so that they can present the facts in a persuasive and compelling manner.

Courtroom Drama

As I drive toward downtown Cincinnati, my thoughts are elsewhere. I see in my mind over and over again that instant in time just several months earlier. There I am, straining to see past the cars parked along the street. I see myself easing my car forward. Suddenly, a car charging at me; I react, but too late. There must have been a loud bang, but in my thoughts I hear only silence.

Now, I head to court. The State of Ohio versus me! A prosecutor whom I have never met claims I violated the law. My attorney will defend me and a judge will decide whether I am guilty or innocent. I see the accident in my mind one more time.

Suddenly, I feel the hot sun blazing through the clear sky. Only an occasional cloud provides momentary relief from the sun’s searing glare. I feel beads of liquid rolling down my neck and disappearing beneath my collar. I pull over. I am there.

My attorney approaches me. He is an over weight man, with black, but graying hair. He queries me whether I am ready. I find this a funny question because I really do not have a choice. He is talking now about the case. With every word he utters, I grow more confident. I am fortunate to have such a skillful and articulate advocate as my ally.

After a brief walk we arrive at the courthouse steps. The courthouse is an imposing edifice. Constructed of gray stone, it towers over the street as Mt. Sinai towered over the Hebrews in olden times. Just as Moses climbed the mountain in search of truth and justice, so too do we climb the courthouse steps.

Inside the building are glossy marble floors, contrasted with out of place florescent lighting. At a desk in the middle of a large room sits an elderly woman. The gate keeper, I guess. She peers through thin spectacles. Her graying hair matches the walls of the building. As we approach, her piercing blues eyes look at me from head to toe. “How may I help you,” she asks. “We are here for Case Number 04-3832,” my attorney replies. She directs us to Courtroom 12. We take a seat in the hall outside and wait.

Because of delays we have to wait for what seems like hours. There is a pit in my stomach. I do not feel like talking. My thoughts are interrupted occasionally by people dashing up and down the hallway. Some men are clad in fine suits, while others wear rags that hang on their bodies. I notice one man in particular covered with tattoos from head to toe, capped off with a head of greasy, nappy hair. A woman walks by, probably a lawyer, walking out to see if a witness is nearby. Occasionally, a man with a broom wearing an orange jumpsuit walks by, casually sweeping the floor. There are people everywhere. I wonder about the state of our society. Why is there a need for such a large building, filled with so many people, many of whom look afraid of what lies ahead for them.
Suddenly, I am jarred, I hear my name called by the bailiff. My attorney tells me it’s time. Rising to my feet, I march into the courtroom. The courtroom contains polished oak benches and a glistening chandelier hanging from the ceiling. It is elegant compared to the harsh exterior of the building. We approach our seats and sit down.
Presiding over the court is Judge Brown. She is perched at the front of the room overlooking mostly empty seats. In an almost impatient fashion she says “Case Number 04-3832. How does the defendant plead?” With this, my attorney slowly rises to his feet and approaches the podium. “Not Guilty, your Honor and move to dismiss.” Judge Brown slowly motions for the prosecutor to speak. The prosecutor requests a half hour recess to discuss my attorney’s motion.

We step out into the hall where my attorney displays pictures. With a smooth, confident tone my attorney says to the prosecutor, “I am sure you will agree that there was no other possible course of action. The situation that presented itself was unavoidable. My client’s field of vision was completely blocked and it was impossible for my client to see if any other cars were coming. My client acted appropriately under the circumstances. Furthermore, in similar cases courts have not hesitated to dismiss the charges.” With that the prosecutor turned his head, gave a slight nod and proposed, “Okay, I will drop the case so long as I have confirmation that all damages have been accounted for by your client’s insurance.” “They have,” my attorney replied. With that, we reentered the courtroom.

The voice of the bailiff rings clear “All rise,” as Judge Brown returns to her bench. “What are the charges?” she asks.

The prosecutor responds to the judge, “The State will dismiss all charges, if opposing counsel stipulates that his client will be responsible for all damages.” “So stipulated Your Honor,” my attorney responds.

I breathe a sigh of relief. I have avoided having four points added to my driver’s license, thereby tarnishing an otherwise stellar driving record. I do not have to pay a plethora of fines that would have been imposed by the court. My insurance rates will not go up. I, gratefully, thank my attorney as we turn and walk down the long hall way out of the courtroom.

As we pass through the front door of the building, the clouds part to make way for a radiant beam of sunlight that illuminates the massive gray building behind us. The windows in the top floor of the building reflect the sun’s brilliance so brightly that it seems as if they are on fire. I reach my car and head home.

I gaze out at the grand Ohio River as it meanders by. I realize I owe a great deal to those who have helped clear me of these charges. I was blessed to have an attorney in whom I had faith and could trust. Judge Brown was fair. How tragic it is to think of the many people who are forced to place their lives in the hands of biased judges and incompetent public defenders. I turn into my driveway. My encounter with the American judicial system has come to a close.

Crime and Punishment

The creation of a penal code has been a long drawn out process. However England was to end up developing one of the strongest ones where over 350 crimes were punishable by death.

The original laws in England stemmed directly from moral and religious, natural laws. However, the government aimed to seek out a way to remove the natural laws and create more “pure” laws for the people. These laws had to be based off of the natural laws, but also removed from them at the same time. They had to have a clear writing, as well as a specific punishment associated with the laws. However, these punishments had to be invoked by the state instead of by other people. The state is in essence taking the law into its own hands.

These punishments however did not entail imprisonment because the concept of a prison did not reach England until much later.

However, in France things were much different. The French were well known for their great prisons. These prisons were not actually used however when someone was tried for a crime, because it was French law that the only punishment for a crime in France was death. Instead the king had the ability to send a letter of punishment to any person in the country. These letters could also be requested by individuals and organizations. These Royal orders essentially stated that the person was to be imprisoned. There was no set sentence length. The person requesting the letter could let the person sit in jail as long as they liked and it was not until a request for the decree to be lifted would the person be let out of jail.

The concept of different levels of punishment for different crimes didn’t reach the people until much later.

None the less, any form of punishment is completely altering the ability of the author to hold his own narrative. While in a court situation the telling of the story is left up to lawyers and witnesses, in a penal setting the author of the story is changed. It is made to be the person who is responsible for running the jail setting. The king and the other people decide how long people are in jail, they are then the ones telling the story. They are writing the next chapter such that the victim in prison has a loss of control on their life.

The taking of an inmate’s life however is the ultimate for of punishment and removing the narrative privileges from the one used. This is because they are unable to choose even how they survive within the prison; they have no choice but death. This comes down to the basic concept that in order to be able to write ones story, they must have the free will to choose how they are going to write it.

Jane's Story

The way people feel about them selves is often connected to how they view their past experiences. In the case of Jane, she views herself as having grown through her life to become a strong independent woman. However, without the ability to tell her own story, she would not be the same person. Deep down Jane appears to be insecure, by the way she tells her story. Through choices of words she depicts her mom as weak and easily influenced. She also portrays all the teachers in her boarding school to be strict and over bearing. Because of this she constructs various tools that show how she has grown to over come the hurt of her childhood. However, the reality is that she still is week and relies on the constructs of her narrative to give her confidence.

Additionally, her story is constructed in such a manner that she creates a difference between the narrated self and her actual self. She mentions her emotions and how no one can imagine them. The author asserts that she is hence moving between two different characters. A more removed positions and then one where she actually delves deeper into the story. During more sensitive parts of the story when she is more apt to get set, she switches into the more “removed” fashion, thus allowing her to create a barrier against the harsher reality that exists in her past.

However in the moments in her life, when she finally feels she stood up for herself, she chooses language that takes a more active role in her own story. This is because she is dropping the barrier she constructs and actually has more confidence in this part of her life.

Thus through these different strategies, Jane takes up different roles in her own life. She clearly depicts them differently in her own story through choices in language. In doing so she is resituating herself in her own life and thus greatly effecting how she views herself today.