f. Rhetorical Question
A rhetorical question is that device which a speaker can use to prompt the listener to ponder the answer of a question where both speaker and listener realize an answer is not expected. Rhetorical questions are frequently used in summation to empower jurors by having them answer a question in their own minds which makes them better understand that they have the power to resolve the issue raised in the question. For example, one of the most effective uses of the rhetorical question in a summation was the following wherein three rhetorical questions were used to close the plaintiff’s rebuttal portion of the summation:
Who will render full justice for this brave young man with a courageous heart beating in his useless body? If not you, who? If not now, when?
Rhetorical questions can be as simple as “what is this child’s life worth in our community?”, followed by the reminder that “this is your determination.”
William Shakespeare, the absolute master of rhetoric, made a complete argument and conveyed a distinctive threat by asking six rhetorical questions designed to make the point that Jews and Christians are no different as human beings. In Shylock’s speech from the Merchant of Venice, Shylock asked rhetorically:
Hath not a Jew eyes?
Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?
If you prick us, do we not bleed, if you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
Shakespeare, in conjunction with the use of six rhetorical questions, also demonstrates the effective use of short, powerful words. Of the 48 words in this message, 40 (83%) are one syllable.
The rhetorical device of alliteration is used to establish the flow and rhythm of your summation. It can be effectively combined with refrain, the Rule of Three and repetition in order to obtain an effective flow. Consider for example the following sentence:
We would witness this fine family emerge from the depths of despair into the heights of happiness.
Another verbal technique which is used in summation which is similar in nature to the rhetorical question technique is the application of understatements. The principle of understatement simply means that it is far better, in terms of impact of testimony, that the obvious not be belabored. A piece of dramatic evidence of disability or injury should speak for itself. Do not harp on that evidence or belabor it because it surely will lose its impact.
A few years ago two young and inexperienced lawyers began trying a quadriplegic case. The client was brought into the courtroom and remained on her stretcher during voir dire and opening statement. Her counsel, discussing the case with an experienced trial lawyer later that day said that he anticipated a big verdict because the jury would be overwhelmed by the sight of this quadriplegic client. The experienced lawyer correctly predicted that there would be a verdict for the defendants. Ten days later, the jury wasted little time in returning a defense verdict. The young lawyer went back to the more experienced lawyers and asked how he knew it would be a defense verdict. The explanation was simple. The inexperienced trial counsel had failed to apply the technique of understatement to the case. The most dramatic piece of evidence was the quadriplegic client. They were hoping that the severity of the injury would overcome the liability problems of the case. Sometimes it does, but by overexposing the jury to the horrors of the plaintiff’s injury day after day, the jury became accustomed to the sight rather than being persuaded by the horror. A more successful approach could have been understating the evidence. Viewing the quadriplegic plaintiff briefly, combined with a viewing of a day-in-the-life film, will cause the jurors to retain the shock of seeing your client.
Properly applied understatement lets the jury use its imagination, and often the horrors that can be unleashed by the imagination are worse than what the actual evidence could show. This is illustrated by the emergence of modern television, which allows the graphic depiction of violence. The horror movies today do not have nearly the impact of the horror movies of twenty or thirty years ago. What we imagine in our minds is far more horrible and devastating than reality. The most significant example of this is Orson Welles’ 1938 radio show about an invasion from Mars, which caused the imaginations of millions of Americans to run wild while the whole nation panicked.
Another startling example of the application of understatement in summation can be illustrated by the effective application of that principle by the late Moe Levine of New York. He was trying a case for a man who had lost both arms. The defendants, the judge, and everyone connected with the case expected a long summation from Mr. Levine about a life with no arms. In fact, his summation was short, simple, and to the point. It was a masterpiece of understatement and resulted in one of the largest verdicts in the history of the State of New York at the time it was given. That brief summation, as paraphrased by Moe Levine himself, is:
Your Honor, eminent counsel for defense, ladies and gentlemen of the jury: as you know, about an hour ago we broke for lunch. And I saw the bailiff came and took you all as a group to have lunch in the juryroom. And then I saw the defense attorney, Mr. Horowitz and his client decided to go to lunch together. And the judge and the court clerk went to lunch. So, I turned to my client, Harold, and said why don’t you and I go to lunch together, and we went across the street to that little restaurant and had lunch. [Significant pause.]
Ladies and gentlemen, I just had lunch with my client. He has no arms. He eats like a dog! Thank you very much.
Sweet, short, simple and to the point. It described the horrible injuries in that admitted liability case and emphasized them far greater by the application of understatement than if Mr. Levine had engaged in a long dialogue about what it is like to have no arms. A point can always be made more effectively and with greater impact when the principle of understatement is applied.
i. Grammatical Inversion
Many of the more persuasive speakers, particularly in our political history, have understood the effective use of grammatical inversion, i.e., displaying words more prominently by inverting the normal quarter of a sentence. In Lincoln’s Second Inaugural, instead of the standard we fondly hope and fervently pray, Lincoln inverted the grammar so as to place more emphasis on the adverbs: “fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray.” We should not only be careful in our selection of the precisely proper and powerful word to use but also discerning in the manner in which we structure the sentences and emphasize the key words.
The distinguishing characteristic between an ordinary summation and an eloquent, persuasive summation is that the eloquent speech is replete with rhythm. Rhythm in speech refers to the flow or movement of the language through patterns. The patterns that are used to create the rhythm in speech are rhetorical devices.
From the cradle to the grave, humans respond to rhythm. The rhythm of our breathing, pulse and heartbeat instill patterns into our most essential existence. The psychological effect of rhythm on humans has been understood for centuries as warriors, both ancient and modern, have used the rhythmic beat of the drum to excite the troops and imbue them with the spirit of battle. Rhythmic speech can be used just as effectively as rhythmic music to move an audience emotionally and to capture and hold their attention. We have all sat through the seemingly endless classes of professors who spoke in a monotone, i.e., without rhythm to their speech. Compare the pacing, rhythm and delivery of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King or a multitude of other great speakers who understood and brilliantly practiced the art of eloquent speech. Examine closely their speech materials, such as Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech or John Kennedy’s “Inaugural Address” and you will see that the starting point of eloquent speech delivery is the material with which the great speakers worked. These two great speeches are included in the appendix to this paper. After reading the section on rhetorical devices, review carefully these two outstanding speeches and notice the manner in which the devices are used brilliantly in order to create a rhythmic speech.
4. Verbal Tools of Structure
In structuring a persuasive presentation of any type, the skilled advocate will do well to study carefully the master orators and persuaders from the past: Pericles, Cicero, Demosthenes and from the present: John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Teddy Roosevelt and the master of them all, Winston Churchill.
For American lawyers, studying Churchill’s effectiveness as a speaker, brings us full circle to Churchill’s early training as an orator. Churchill acknowledges that his role model as an orator was a New York attorney and congressman, Bourke Cockran, whom he met when he visited New York in 1895. Churchill states that “it was an American statesman who inspired me and taught me how to use every note of the human voice like an organ. He was my model. I learned from him how to hold thousands enthrall”.
One of the most important lesson which Cockran taught to Churchill is equally important as a lesson for all attorneys today. Cockran stated “Only a speaker who is sincere can be eloquent, because sincerity is the name of eloquence. What people really want to hear is the truth – it is the exciting thing. Speak the truth.”
The preparation technique which Cockran explained to Churchill is equally applicable to advocates today, i.e., to study in great detail everything he could learn about his subject; to carefully store and order in his mind the materials; to simplify the most difficult issues with carefully selected examples and illustrations; to concentrate on the strongest points, and in delivery, to build the material up to an irrefutable conclusion. After a career during which he received innumerable distinctions, Winston Churchill, the only person ever to receive a Nobel Prize with a citation for oratory, was kind enough to list the seven rules that he had followed in order to achieve his level of almost unparalleled eloquence. These rules are certainly useful for those of us who seek to achieve our most persuasive level before juries. Churchill’s rules include the following:
- Know, respect and love the English language.
- See and hear eloquent speakers in action and study the text of their speeches.
- Endure your handicaps if they can’t be cured and turn them to your advantage.
- Read good books to broaden your mind and stimulate your thinking, since much of eloquent speaking depends on both knowledge and thought.
- Be sincere and use rhetorical devices to help your audiences understand and remember what you say, and to stir their emotions.
- Put forth your best efforts to prepare your speeches and seize every possible opportunity to practice them.
- Let your feelings or personality show in your speeches.
Remember that the goals which we seek to achieve in structuring our messages include simple communication which aid jurors to understand, empathize, retain and act upon the information which we convey to them.
a. Power Word Choices
Words are the tools of the trade of the trial lawyer. Just as the plumber must choose precisely the right sized wrench, the trial attorney must choose precisely the right word from many with similar meanings. We are well advised to remember the advice of Mark Twain:
Use the right word, not its second cousin. The difference between the almost-right word and the right word is really a large matter – it’s the difference between the lightning bug and lightning. A powerful agent is the right word.
The great orators in our history have unanimously extolled the virtues of precise word selection. Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his famous radio address announcing Japan’s sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, originally wrote the opening line: “December 7, 1941, a day that will live in world history.” Upon reflection, he changed the broad term “world history” to the more precise word, “infamy”, which connotes not only the historical event but the contemptuous attitude which the American public held towards the Japanese sneak attack.
Words are the most powerful drug used by mankind. Not only do words infect, egotize, narcotize and paralyze, but they enter into and color the minutest cells of the brain” according to master wordsmith, Rudyard Kipling.
In order to maximize the effectiveness of the presentation to the jury, the skilled advocate must carefully consider the selection of the language of the case before each trial. There are impact words which are generic and can be used in every case but the development of catch phrases, or lay synonyms for technical language and medical terminology must be considered. There are several word choices to make, including impact words, catch phrases, logical or emotional words, short, long, old and new words, technical or lay language and significantly, the specific language of the case. In making these selections the attorney must also consider the particular make-up of the jury to whom the words are being addressed. Another consideration is the comfort level of the attorney in using the words “chosen”. It is more persuasive to speak with rhythm and fluidity than to stumble over words with which the speaker is unfamiliar or has difficulty pronouncing. Counsel should also be cognizant of the possible synonymous meanings of a word since twelve jurors will be selecting their own definition and applying their own understanding to a word with numerous synonymous meanings. Remember, clarity is the goal, to convey to the judge and all twelve jurors precisely the message, since, as the German poet Goethe stated “everyone hears only what he understands”.
In word selection, consider both denotative meaning and connotative meaning of each power word. The denotative meaning is the precise meaning as defined in the dictionary. The connotative meaning consists of the ramifications which can be associated with the word. For example, “home” denotes the residence where a person lives but connotes far more, the comforts, privacy, warmth and intimacy of a person’s “castle”. Be specific and concrete in word selection.
The precise selection of words, metaphors, analogies and other rhetorical devices should be assimilated during trial to the specific type of jury before whom you are trying the case. In advance of trial, in establishing the language of the case and the rhetorical devices to be used, create alternatives which fit different types of juries. For example, if you draw a jury, the leadership of which is white collar business, you may choose not to use the same language of the case, metaphors and analogies which you would use if the jury leadership is blue collar, labor union members. Thus, it is necessary to review your word selections, analogies, metaphors and other rhetorical devices after voir dire examination and after you have learned as much as possible about the members of your jury so as to utilize language which will be most readily accepted, understood, retained and recalled by these particular jurors.
We use focus groups to establish the language of the case and to test arguments and rhetorical devices. While the use of focus groups in litigation is a recent innovation, the same concept has been in use by great advocates and orators for centuries. Consider the test which Abraham Lincoln used in his selection of language:
I was not satisfied until I had put it in language plain enough, as I thought, for any boy I knew to comprehend. This was a kind of passion with me, and it has stuck by me; for I am never easy now, when I am handling a thought, until I have bounded it north and bounded it south, and bounded it east and bounded it west.
As advocates, we should replace Lincoln’s “Any Boy I Know” test with choice of language of the case designed to persuade our particular jurors in each individual case, taking into account all that we know about each of the jurors which we have learned on voir dire examination and through careful observation of their non verbal communication in and out of the courtroom, throughout the trial.
In careful word selection we must distinguish between general versus specific; abstract versus concrete; short versus long; emotive versus logical; technical versus lay; old versus new; familiar versus jargon; and give additional thought to such matters as to whether to use slang or vernacular.