A thematic analysis of opening statements and closing arguments in a well-publicized criminal trial

Author

Michelle Renee LeValley

Date of Award

8-1997

Degree Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy

Major

Psychology

Major Professor

Ronald Hopson

Committee Members

Michael Johnson

Abstract

This study was undertaken to explore attorney rhetoric within a criminal court of law. Transcripts from an actual criminal trial, The State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson, were used to examine the attorney's speech using the method of hermeneutic analysis. Opening statements and closing arguments from this trial were used to compare actual trial language to theories within the legal, psychological and communications literatures. Findings indicate support for Pennington and Hastie's story model, and Klonoff's sponsorship theory. Peter's participatory devices were found to be central aspects of conveying recurrent themes within the transcripts. Results of this trial were both supportive and discrepant from Parkinson's findings. An important theme that emerged throughout the transcripts was a sense of interpersonal connection to, or distance from, central figures in the trial. A combination of theoretical models was suggested, with the implications of these findings for future studies included.

Recommended Citation

LeValley, Michelle Renee, "A thematic analysis of opening statements and closing arguments in a well-publicized criminal trial. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 1997.
https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/9541