Progressive stereotype construction through opening statement, witness testimony, and closing argument in two criminal trials: The Seven of Chicago and West Memphis Three

Abstract

This research aims to describe the progressive narrative construction of some specific stereotypes of defendants in criminal trials. Some specific discourse strategies were identified as relevant to examine this progression regarding the prosecution's stereotyped construction of the defendants, as well as the defense’s unsuccessful attempts to resist such stereotypes. These strategies are semantic prosodies, types of questions and answers, different face attacks, and —though to a lesser extent— the making of promises. The study examines the development of the adversarial phase in two different trials —The Seven of Chicago and The West Memphis Three—: the opening statements, witness testimonies, and closing arguments. Findings largely indicate that face attacks are productive to characterize the progression of the stereotype, and that stereotype construction in the cases of both semantic prosodies and type of questions and answers is a cumulative process that climaxes in the closing argument. Findings regarding promises, however, suggest but a partial contribution to the stereotype construction, as promise-making proved to provide only hints of the stereotype that the prosecution wants to develop and the defense intends to resist, while these hints resulted in fact to be better explained under the examination of the other analytical dimensions discussed in this study. The study concludes that the narrative construction of stereotypes during the adversarial phase of the criminal trials analyzed proved to be central in the persuasive process that is a trial. It suggests that the fact that both trials were characteristic of the lack of solid evidence against the defendants resulted in a productive compensating deployment of discourse strategies that the prosecution sets off in order for the jury to perceive defendants in a certain negative way. This, in turn, is paralleled by the defense’s preventive or reactive efforts to resist the prosecution’s attempts, as well as by the defendant’s own resisting work. This research chiefly concludes that the strategies used, especially by lawyers, undergo a constant process of adjustment resulting from the situated lawyers’ assessment of what is proving to be successful to their case’s narrative construction (and to their opponent’s), and of what is not. The dynamic nature of trial argumentation is, therefore, at the heart of the trial strategic constructions examined in this study.