THE JURY SUMMATION AS SPEECH GENRE -- Title page -- Copyright page -- Dedication -- Abstract -- Table of contents -- Preface -- Acknowledgements -- List of Tables -- 1 .Introduction -- Speech Event - Speech Genre -- Speaking -- How to Recognize a Summation -- Education in Summation for the Novice Lawyer -- This Study -- Research Methods and Problems -- Ways of Speaking -- The Cooperative Principle -- QUANTITY: -- QUALITY: -- RELATION: -- MANNER: -- The Psychology of Persuasion -- SECTION1: The Sender -- 2. A Description of the Summation According to Trial Lawyers -- Subjects -- Method -- Instrument -- Data Analysis -- 3. Summation: In the Words of the Senders -- Physical Context of Interviews -- Directions for Use of Following Data -- Index for Chapter 3 -- 3.1 The value of the summation to the trial process -- 3.2 Style of presentation of the speech event -- 3.3. Women in the act of summing-up -- 3.4 Lawyers' views of receivers (jurors) of the closing speech -- 3.5 Content of closing speeches -- 3.6 Methods employed -- 3.7 Statistical information -- 3.1 The value of the summation to the trial process: -- A. What is the value of the summation to the trial process?(N=34) -- B. Would the outcome of the trial be different without the summation?(N=25) -- C.What is the main thing you are trying to do during the summation? -- Quotes: -- 3.2 Style of presentation of the speech event -- A. Can you describe your style? (N=26) -- B. Are you good at it (giving closing speeches)?(N=33) -- C. The matter of Ego in closing speeches. -- D. Do you prefer to give an intellectual or emotional closing? Do you aim for the head or the heart?(N=25) -- E. Do you ever use humor (N=16) -- F. Do you ever disparage the opposing lawyer?(N=12) -- G. Do you experience stage fright or nervousness before summation?(N=33).

H. Are you attentive to the way you dress on the day you sum up? (N=20) -- 3.3 Women in the act of summing-up: -- A. Are women different from men in effect in the courtroom?(N=12) -- B. Does being female in a traditionally male arena make a difference to you? -- C. Are you attentive to the way you dress in the courtroom - with an awareness of being a woman? (N=8 Women) -- 3.4 Lawyers' views of the receivers (jurors) of the closing speech: -- A. Do you have a high or low regard for jurors and the jury system?(N=34) -- B. What kinds of persons do you prefer as jurors? -- C. Do you think there is a relationship between liking someone and believing them? Do you try to get the jurors to like you?(N=32) -- D. Do you believe in using social scientists for selecting jurors?(N=12) -- E. Do you think that jurors should be allowed to take notes? (N=16) -- 3.5 Content of the closing speech: -- A. The topics which were mentioned most often as being included in the closing speech, influenced by the side of the case on which the lawyer argues. -- B. Do you have a usual way of opening or closing your final argument?(N=21) -- C. Do you thank the jurors for their jury service? (N=13) -- D. Do you like to use metaphors, stories, poetry, biblical or literary quotations?(N=34) -- 3.6 Methods employed for the speech event summation: -- A. When do you begin working on the summation?(N=34) -- B. Do you include the client in the preparation of the summation? (Or for prosecutors, do you consult with other lawyers?)(N=29) -- C. Do you memorize any portion of your closing speech? (N=30) -- D. If there are several defense attorneys representing several clients, when do you prefer to give your summation: first, middle, last, doesn't matter?(N=27) -- E. Do you address your summation to one particular juror, all of them, or a few?(N=34) -- F. Do you like to use a lectern? (N=29).

G. Do you use notes during the summation?(N=27) -- H. Do you like to use blackboards, large charts, overhead projector, props during the closing argument?(N=33) -- I. How long do you like to talk?(N=34) -- J. What is your reaction to lawyers 'objecting' during summation? -- 3.7 General Statistics: -- A. How many closing speeches do you make in the course of one year? -- B. Number of lawyer-informants in study: -- C. Lawyer-informants by usual type of law practiced: -- 4. Learning and Teachingthe Ways of Speaking Like a Lawyer -- INDEX FOR CHAPTER 4 -- 4.1 How you learned to speak like a lawyer summing up -- 4.2 Educating the novice lawyer to this way of speaking -- 4.1 How you learned to speak like a lawyer summing up: -- A. Observing other lawyers -- B. Doing it -- E. Public speaking course or debate in high school -- F.Trial practice course -- H. Reading in general -- 4.2 Educating the novice lawyer to this way of speaking -- A. Positive factors: What a lawyer SHOULD do in the summation -- B. Negative factors: What a lawyer should NOT do in the summation -- C. General comments about learning and teaching to sum up -- 5. In the Words of the Senders: Significant Other Issues -- 5.1 The metaphors of summation: -- 5.2 Legal missteps in closing arguments: -- 5.3 Rhetorical questions: -- 5.4 Civil/Criminal, Plaintiff/Defense, Prosecutor/Defense differences: -- A. Civil/Criminal differences -- B. Plaintiff/Defense (within civil litigation) -- C. Prosecutor/Defender (within criminal trials) -- 5.5 Sincerity/Credibility: -- 5.6 Persuasion: -- 5.7 Truth versus justice in the courtroom: -- 5.8 Summation as a two-way communication: -- 5.9 Style: -- 5.10 Performance: -- SUMMARY OF DATA PRESENTED IN CHAPTERS 3, 4, AND 5 -- SECTION 2: The Observer -- 6. Observing Summation -- Subjects -- Procedure for Data Collection -- Difficulties of Data Analysis.

Observed Features -- Setting the Scene -- 7. Words Spoken in the Courtroom while Summing Up -- Words Spoken in Summation -- Some Quantitative Data -- Prosecutor and Defense Attorney Differences -- Other Correlations -- Accused Delivers Own Summation -- Formation of a Summation -- 8. What They Say They Do - What They Did -- Characteristics of Observed Summations -- Character of the Speakers -- Evaluating the Speeches -- Self-Report: Observation -- A Special Case -- Same Speaker - Multiple Summations -- Defense Summations in Winning Cases -- Summary -- SECTION3: The Receiver -- 9. What Jurors Believe the Summation Means to Them -- Subjects -- Method -- Questionnaire -- Data Analysis -- Results -- Results from Questionnaires Completed by Alternate Jurors -- Conclusion -- 10. Other Related Issues -- Summation in Mock Trials -- University of Pennsylvania Law School Class Observed -- Three Other Studies With Corroborating Evidence -- Other Sources of Information -- Cross-Cultural Comparisons -- Women Trial Lawyers -- Black Trial Lawyers -- The Old Bailey -- Textbook for Studying Summation -- Summation as Literature -- Tapes for Studying Summation -- 11.Conclusions -- What is a Good Closing Speech? -- Contradictory Evidence -- What a Summation can do -- Suggestions for Future Research -- APPENDICES -- APPENDIX A:Questions for Interviews with Lawyers -- APPENDIX B :QuestionnaireCompleted by Jurors -- APPENDIX C :QuestionnaireCompleted by Alternate Jurors -- APPENDIX D:Percentage of Features Occurring in ALL Summations (25% and greater) N=66 -- APPENDIX E:Percentage of FeaturesOccurring in Summationsof PROSECUTORS (25% and greater) N=26 -- APPENDIX F:Percentage of Features Occurring in Summations of DEFENSE ATTORNEYS (25% and greater) N=40 -- APPENDIX G:One lawyer - More than one closing speech -- APPENDIX H: Summations of Defense Attorneys in Winning Cases.

NOTES -- BIBLIOGRAPHY -- SUBJECT INDEX -- ATTORNEY INDEX.

The American courtroom trial is a speech situation. Everything occurs through the spoken word. The 'summation', as speech event embedded within the trial, which is the chronological and psychological culmination of it, is one of the few opportunities for the lawyer to communicate directly with jurors. But the speech genre summation involves preliminaries as well as the event itself; and it can affect the aftermath of the trial, for the decisions of the jurors may be influenced by this discourse.This ethnographic study considers the summation from three perspectives: that of the producer, from the point of view of the ethnographer who observed and analyzed sixty-six actual summations and from that of the receivers of the speech event who must act upon it. Information was obtained from post-deliberation questionnaires completed by 223 jurors, plus 35 alternate jurors.

Description based on publisher supplied metadata and other sources.

Electronic reproduction. Ann Arbor, Michigan : ProQuest Ebook Central, 2018. Available via World Wide Web. Access may be limited to ProQuest Ebook Central affiliated libraries.