An Analysis of Engagement Resources in Courtroom Closing Arguments: A Case Study of Jodi Arias Case

Abstract

Closing arguments are the last chance for prosecutors and defense lawyers to persuade a judge or jury during the trial, and they play an important role in the court trial, and engagement resources can help enhance the objectivity and persuasiveness of closing arguments. Therefore, this paper adopts engagement system to make a comparative analysis in the closing arguments of the prosecutor and the defense lawyer in Jodi Arias case and to explore the effects of engagement resources in arguments. The study found that dialogic contraction resources help compress the rebuttal space of the opposed views and that dialogic expansion resources help enhance the persuasiveness and objectivity of the arguments. Lawyers on both sides often use dialogic contraction resources, while the defense lawyer uses disclamation resources more frequently and the prosecutor uses proclamation resources more frequently.