结案陈词的叙事建构及其对裁决的影响——以辛普森案件为例

The Narrative Construction of Closing Arguments and Its Impact on Jury Verdict——A Case Study of O.J.Simpson Case

结案陈词为控辩双方最后、也是真正面对陪审团进行最充分、最自由、最详细陈述的机会,其叙事的战略重要性在辛普森一案中尤为突出。该案中,辩方在故事主角的选派、叙事组织结构以及凸显事件或状态时所采取的措施等方面,均较控方更胜一筹,陪审团因此裁决辛普森无罪。本文从从法庭叙事的角度为被告方何以无罪提供相应的语言层面上的支撑,为叙事学在法学领域的运用提供一个思路,而法庭叙事研究也将拓宽法官或陪审团看待事实问题的视野,有助于案件判决的准确性。

It is in the closing statements that the litigants have the last opportunity to highlight freely their views in the most detailed ways.This study examines the organizational strategies employed and articulated by both the prosecution and the defense to construct their closing arguments in O.J.Simpson case in which the importance of narrative strategy is outstanding,and holds further that the defense employed a more convincing narrative style,legal expository format,and more effective ways to give prominence to events or states,thus attacked the character of the prosecution＇s story and the motivation of the prosecution,consequently deconstruct the opponent＇s story,and eventually succeeded in persuading the jury into rendering a ＂not-guilty＂ verdict.This article provides a sound linguistic basis for the not-guilty verdict from courtroom narrative prospective and a tentative approach for the application of Narratology in legal field,and suggests that courtroom narrative research will broaden the insight of the jury or judges as to the finding of facts and contribute to the accurate decision-rendering.