Newark Court: A Rhetorical Point of View

In a situation pertaining to any legal circumstances, the influence of rhetoric will be more then apparent to an outsider looking in. In addition, it is the job of a lawyer to manipulate rhetoric so that a case for their client can be formulated. A trial is in essence a battle of rhetoric. Each side is attempting to convince the judge or jury of their version of what happen, not necessarily what the truth actually is. Every case is an example of disoi logoi in that each side has their own opinion of what the truth is and it is up to the judge or jury to come to a decision or compromise based on what the two sides present. Also, while it may not seem obvious, both sides are working toward a final goal, even if it is not the same one. In addition, in every case doxa plays a big role in the result of the trial. The opinions and beliefs of the judge and jury could very easily influence the outcome of the trial. If you have a preconceived notion about a certain act, your opinion will be influenced when it is time to make a decision. While lawyers cannot pick the judge that presides over the case, they have an impact in who will be on their jury. The selecting of the jury can be the deciding factor in a particular case because of the doxa that comes into play. When observing a court for any amount of time, the influence and importance of rhetoric is so obvious and so important, you can lose track of what the trial is actually about.
When observing the trial scene in Newark, the first thing that can be noticed is the serious nature of the entire courthouse. This is something that is taken very seriously, as it should be, and the proceedings are very formal. Three trials were observed on October 28 and all three went in extremely different directions, yet harbored some of the same ideals and principles of rhetoric. The first case was the State of Ohio versus Travis Singleton. Travis was in court that day because he was changing his plea from “not guilty” to “no contest” in the charges of assault to a police officer. The first thing that can be observed in the proceedings was the formality of it. When Travis’ lawyer informed the judge that he wished to change his plea, the judge had to read a list of very rehearsed questions and used logos a great deal in his speech. His questions were all based around reason and thought. There was no emotion or outside opinion influencing what he was saying. There was a set protocol that he had to follow in order to live up to the legal integrity of the whole situation. The Prosecuting attorney also seemed to purely use logos in his arguments. He based everything completely around fact and including no opinion or emotion in his argument. A lot of the reasoning behind this strategy could have been the fact that all of the evidence was in their favor. The fact that the defendant assaulted a police officer means that the eyewitnesses were very reliable.
The defense lawyer, however, took a very different approach to defending his client. There was much more pathos and ethos taken into account during his arguments. The lawyer focused a lot on his character and the fact that he was an alcoholic and came from an adopted family. The lawyer also questioned Travis’ dad to attempt to bring more pathos into the courtroom. He wanted the judge to see the defendant as a boy who needed help, not as a man who attacked a police officer because he had too much to drink. Also, the lawyer attempting to create a common place of ideals where there was sympathy and understanding for someone who has a drug problem and is willing and eager to receive help. However, this attempt by the lawyer was unsuccessful. While the lawyer and Travis’ Dad attempted to use ethos to make the judge more understanding, the judge turned their argument around. Travis got into a fight in prison and has been arrested several times before. The judge used pathos to show that while Travis does need help, he has already been given too many free rides and need harsher punishment. The judge sentenced Travis to six months in prison since no officers were severely injured. The judge delivered the verdict with complete logos showing no signs of emotion or remorse and quickly moved on to the next case on the docket.
The second case that was observed was the State of Ohio versus Michael Blesser. Michael was there so that his lawyer could simply ask for a continuance. Also, his lawyer motioned for intervention by the family services of the court so that there was a possibility of no conviction. The judge granted the continuance because of the lack of evaluation of the defendant. In this case because of the abruptness of it, all of the parties involved stuck to strict logos for a speedy decision based on the facts. The judge was able to make this decision with pure logos because of the lack of evidence and investigation presented. Also, the prosecutor did not object making the decision to grant the continuance logical.
The third and final case that was observed this day was the State of Ohio versus David. The defendant in this case did plead not guilty when he was first arrested, but was now changing his plea to guilty and looking for sentencing. In this case, as with the first one, the judge started out with a series of questions that were pure logos. There were even more questions in this case because the defendant had a court appointed attorney. This attorney seemed to be the least prepared out of all of the attorneys seen in this day. This lawyer, again like the lawyer in the first trial, attempted to bring pathos and ethos into the courtroom. He brought up David’s bad childhood and the fact that he was physically and emotionally abused. The lawyer gave a detailed account of the kind of abuse along with specific examples of what he was exposed to. This was obviously done to appeal to the emotions of the judge. Also, the lawyer discussed his client’s character and his willingness to accept what he did and willing to try and change. The prosecuting lawyer again stuck to logos, but agreed that the defendant had been working hard toward bettering himself. The judge then sentenced David, using only logos, to time served and patrol. The patrol included random drug testing, AA, mental health programs, etc. While the judge used purely logos to deliver his verdict, he did bring some pathos into the situation by acknowledging the horrible life the defendant has lead and his need to get further help.
In all of these cases, and in all cases, the questions of stasis arise. There is always the chain of questions that lead to the outcome (conjecture, degree, etc). With cases one and three the question was no longer whether or not a crime was committed, it was what should the punishment be. While the legal system may seem harsh and rehearsed, there is always the process of stasis that the situation can be analyzed and the questions can be answered, hopefully always in the fairest way.

Newark Trial: a Rhetorical Point of View

Finally we are at the courthouse. I feel like I have been in jail forever just waiting for my trial. Everyone keeps yelling, “Travis come here,” or “Travis get over there.” How do they expect us to move so fast with these chains wrapped around us? The chains are so tight. We are here though so I do not care about that. I really want to get this trial over with. We walked up the stairs to the courtroom where my case was going to be heard and I was instantly overwhelmed. The courtroom was magnificent. There were all of these busts of old judges I guess looking down at the courtroom; I could tell they were judging all of us. We walked to the back where the bailiff made us sit; he was a real jerk, polite to everyone but us. My lawyer was there waiting for me, he was a pretty good guy. We were up first on the docket and I was starting to get nervous. My lawyer and I sat down on the defense side. The judge’s bench seemed so high up. He was judging me, not what I did, but me. He kept looking down on me, maybe that is why the bench is up so high.
He kept asking me question after question, I was so nervous. My lawyer told me what he was going to say and how to answer, but it is a lot harder when it’s actually happening. My voice was trembling the whole time. I think he just wants me to be intimidated and he wants me to think he is better then me. My lawyer did a really good job making me sound like a worthless human being, but I guess he is just trying to get me off. I mean I just keep getting in fights in jail; I cannot go back. That other lawyer sucked. He kept trying to get more jail time for me, but I did not do anything to him. I just cannot understand lawyers.
My dad made me really uncomfortable. I know he was there to help me, but he was looking down on me too. The witness stand was high up like the judges’ bench. Everyone kept saying that I have a drinking problem. Why can’t I just be social? He just had to bring up the story about mom turning me in for stealing. How can you steal from your own house? Mom never understood me anyway, but she never could. I wonder what my real parents were like. I know my dad loves me, but I feel like he is disappointed in me. He never lets me tell my side of the story, he always believes the police. He was right about me getting mixed up in the wrong crowd; those dudes were not cool. How could they turn me in like that? I cannot go back to prison.
I think my dad’s testimony went well. The other lawyer did not even do anything; he was just so cocky. I could be a lawyer like him. I cannot go back to prison. My lawyer did such a good job of presenting my case; I am not a bad person. I love my family; I just get a little carried away when I drink. Everyone gets a little crazy when they drink though. I wonder if that guy who tried to steal my food is doing any better; I hope not. They kept bring up the past cases I had been in and the bailiff kept looking at me like I was guilty the minute I walked in with chains clamoring around my body. The judge is so mean. I do not think he even cares. Everything he says is so harsh, but dull at the same time. When he read my verdict my heart sunk to the floor, I think you could hear it pounding. My dad came all the way here from West Virginia for nothing. I cannot go back to jail. Why did he give me six more months in jail? How can I survive more time in jail, I just got drunk. The police officers are fine; it was just a misunderstanding. I cannot go back to jail, but I am going back to jail.

Commonplaces

A commonplace is anything, including a statement or idea, that is shared between a group of people. A topic is a Greek term for commonplace. Basically, it is where arguments take place. If you look at this site you can see an example of a commonplace. As you can see, all the people making posts have the same beliefs and ideas about the government. This is a commonplace where people can share their same ideas.

The System of Stasis

If someone is accused of assault, the first question that should be raised is whether or not the assault was committed (conjecture). The second question should be was it assault or just a small fight(definition). The third question to look at is whether it was self defense or an attack (quality). Lastly, you need to determine if the person should be tried or not (policy). Also, considering whether it was premeditated or not could aide in determining the quality.

Stasis

In my Persuasion class we learned about the rhetorical and legal principle of stasis. Stasis is a way of analyzing something in a systematic way. This means that that there is a series of questions to detrermine the outcome. For more information check out this site

Legal system creates a new Author

When the judicial system was first started, there was a mentality of “every man for himself.” Disputes were settled between individuals on their own terms and people kept their own business private. That type of system is no longer even in the realm of possibility. Now, any dispute that occurs must go through the legal system and be decided by a greater authority. There is no longer a decision made by individuals coming to a general acceptance, now they must go along with the court’s decision.

People no longer are able to tell their story; they are forced to be seen through their lawyer’s eyes. When they enter this court arena, a new “author” tells their story. Lawyers tend to see a different side to the situation then their clients want them to portray. Facts can be spun in order to win the case at any cost, no matter how it makes the client appear. Lawyers become in complete control of the situation and of their clients future. They begin to shape what happen and slowly, the client’s rendition of what is true becomes more obsolete.

The two parties lose control of the ending of their story more then anything. The outcome is out of their hands and into the Judge that presides over the case. The Judge decides who is at fault and what the punishment should be. The two parties involved especially are in the hands of a new author when they do not even have control over their ending.

Jane's story

In the first narrative presented about Jane, she easily was constructed in a different light then what you were first exposed to at the beginning. At first, Jane was a confident successful adult that we had no previous history on. As she began to tell her story, you realized that this persona was somewhat of an illusion.

Jane was not this strong adult as you may have pictured.
Jane was Armenian and therefore most likely discriminated against her entire life; we the reader received a perfect example of the discrimination in her first short narrative. Jane’s parents divorced early, her mother was weak and easily influence, she was abused by her teachers and defenseless. From most of her narrative, you get the idea that life was not as easy as one would hope. She also talks about how the situation she was in as a child in boarding school still haunts her today and she discourages anyone she hears mention the words from even looking into a boarding school. Her experience in one location has shaped her outlook on life. When she talks about running away from her second boarding school, she shows how passive and defenseless she really was. Jane shows the audience how hopeless she was in her life and how she did not know how to regain control. In the beginning, Jane saw herself as a victim and lived her life that way. As she grew up, she began to see that she could take control of her life. Her words changed when she got to that part of her life. You could tell just from what she said that she had grown into her own woman, confident and proud.

Day 1

This blog is set up to examine trials in Newark, OH.