Argumentative Effects of Orality in Jury Trials

Abstract

This research aims to demonstrate the importance of orality in the argumentative construction of the defendant in the Jury Trial. To this end, the persuasive effects of the testimony of the defendant Luciano Bonilha Leão in the Kiss nightclub trial are analyzed, taking as a starting point the marks of hesitation and reformulation, typical phenomena of spoken text. As a theoretical framework, orality is discussed based on the postulates of Preti (1999) and subsequent studies, while argumentation is supported by the precepts of Rhetoric (Aristotle, 2005) and New Rhetoric (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1996 [1958]). This qualitative research is based on the transcription of the testimony following the norms of the NURC Project. The results demonstrate potential argumentative effects: hesitation reveals the desire to gain time in planning upcoming information and the speaker's apprehension in making certain statements, anticipating a risk to their ethos; reformulation by correction reveals the choice of verbal constructions consistent with the defense's thesis; and reformulation by paraphrase strategically adds details and circumstances to the defendant's narrative, benefiting their project of saying, in addition to provoking shifts in meaning. Thus, orality proves to be essential in achieving the desired persuasion within the jury.