Rhetoric in Law and Society

RHETORIC IN LAW AND SOCIETY 1
Rhetoric in Law and Society: Zimmerman, Obama, and Alachua County Defense Attorneys
Ronald Carabbia
University of Florida Student Legal Services

Table of Contents
State of Florida v. George Zimmerman – Defense Opening Statement ..............................3
Rhetorical Précis .............................................................................................................3
Rhetorical Analysis.........................................................................................................3
Alachua County Defense Attorney Interviews ....................................................................8
Defense Attorney X ........................................................................................................8
Defense Attorney Y ......................................................................................................11
President Barak Obama’s Remarks on the Zimmerman Verdict .......................................12
Rhetorical Précis ...........................................................................................................12
Rhetorical Analysis.......................................................................................................12

State of Florida v. George Zimmerman – Defense Opening Statement
Rhetorical Précis
In his opening statement for George Zimmerman’s second degree murder trial, defense
attorney Don West argues that the state is compensating for a lack of evidence with outward
passion, that Trayvon Martin was armed, and that George Zimmerman acted out of self-defense.
West supports his claims by one, juxtaposing the state’s inflated language with his attention to
detail; two, comparing the sidewalk to a weapon; and three, recreating the event. West’s purpose
is to convince the jury that the state is unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
Zimmerman is guilty of all elements that define second degree murder. West speaks in a matter-
of-fact tone for a six-person jury composed of all women.
Rhetorical Analysis
Defense attorney Don West’s unanimated yet calculated delivery underscores his
rhetorical strategy throughout the opening statement. Nonetheless, West opens by observing and
empathizing with the heartache of Trayvon Martin’s family. Whether this empathy is sincere—
that Zimmerman is a “sad case [where] a young man lost his life” (line 2)—is only a concern for
the jury and not a point of discussion in our chronological rhetorical analysis. Conceding that
Martin’s family “[has] the right to grieve,” West’s first rhetorical intent is to erase any
preconception in the jury’s mind that the defense is immoral for representing a client that killed a
child, in any capacity (line 3). Facilitated by his grim tone, emotionally appealing that “there are
no winners here” extends his purpose of extinguishing any moral questions in representing
Zimmerman by explaining the dynamic of the trial as not one of winning or losing (line 2).
Rather, he urges that the loss of a child’s life is the central matter. Now that West feels he has
established himself as ethical with the jury, he employs a seamless segway, noting that the
Martins are not the only family affected: “Zimmerman’s parents also are grieving,” he claims,

humanizing the people that raised Zimmerman and, in turn, Zimmerman himself (lines 3-4).
Accordingly, West insists that the “evidence will show that this is a sad case, that there are no
monsters here,” mitigating typical trial language to an interpersonal level (line 5). West
concludes his first rhetorical measure—to depict him and his client in a compassionate light—by
taking a considerable risk to cut the tension in the room. In fact, West goes on to tell a joke:
Knock knock.
Who’s there.
George Zimmerman.
George Zimmerman who?
Alright, you’re on the jury. (lines 6-7)
Making a joke out of the fact that nearly everyone knows about the case and that it is highly
publicized is an attempt to connect with the jury. Unfortunately for West, the courtroom is
virtually stagnant following its delivery.
In trial advocacy, it is typically encouraged to incorporate the theme of an opening or
closing statement early on. Don West, however, elects to withhold his theme until later in his
opening statement, transitioning from his initial emotional appeal to recreating the event. In
recreating the event, West’s word choice, particularly his choice of modifiers, is deliberately
connoted. Zimmerman “shot Martin in self-defense,” according to West, “after being viciously
attacked” (line 8): “viciously” is intended to make Zimmerman sound helplessly victimized by
Martin. Likewise, West assures that Zimmerman was left with no alternative but to “wind up
shooting and tragically killing Martin” (lines 10-11); that is, shooting Martin was tragic for
Zimmerman, not satisfying. Here, West’s word choice serves to evoke the same emotions with
the jury that Zimmerman felt on the day of shooting—fear followed by despair. For the jury to
vicariously experience Zimmerman’s thought process, West notes that the neighborhood was
increasingly crime-ridden, and Martin was reasonably presumed to be another player in the local
game of crime in light of the circumstances.

While continuing to recreate the event, Don West addresses a key counterargument
that—if accepted by the jury—would advance the prosecution’s argument. Namely, it is widely
known that Zimmerman was told to stop following Martin by the dispatcher but did so anyways;
so, to neutralize this fact, West presents what instructions Zimmerman did follow (lines 12-13).
Here, the phone call with the dispatcher is introduced, a significant risk since evidence
introduced in an opening that doesn’t get admitted in testimony can spawn a mistrial. Containing
crude and malicious language, the phone call reveals Zimmerman exclaiming that “those
assholes always get away, fucking punks” (lines 14-15). To forestall the prosecution from
skewering Zimmerman over these remarks, West diffuses the seemingly incriminating language
by emphasizing the context and the moment. What is additionally significant about the
presentation of the phone call in the opening statement is that both the prosecution and the
defense are attempting to admit it into evidence. A point of rhetorical discussion, it should be
noted that, in law, multiple inferences can be made from a single piece of evidence. West turns
the phone call—a staple in the state’s case—against the prosecutor to highlight that Zimmerman
continually asked for the dispatcher to send an officer, inferring that Zimmerman was not
looking to directly intervene.
Don West does not neatly organize his opening the way that a young or inexperienced
attorney would by introducing the theme first, recreating the event second, defining the crime’s
elements third, and so on. He intentionally overlaps each of these components on his rhetorical
roadmap, making it more difficult for rhetorical scholars to untangle. As such, he begins to
define the elements of second degree murder while continuing to recreate the event. Second
degree murder, thus, requires a “reckless act, indifferent to human life, a depraved mind act, ill-
will, hatred, and spite” (lines 17-18). West then zooms in on the requisite indifference to human
life by precluding the jury from making an inference about Zimmerman’s lack of emotion: his

“calm[ness], as if nothing happened” was a product of “the most traumatic event of his life,”
according to West (lines 20-21). West’s next rhetorical tactic stresses the prosecution’s burden of
proof by employing asyndeton, or omitting conjunctions, to make the list of elements that the
state must prove sound longer than it actually is (lines 24-26). Returning to Zimmerman’s
character, West juxtaposes his client’s decision immediately following the shooting to not hire an
attorney with the witnesses’ urgency in hiring attorneys of their own (lines 29-32). Similarly,
West appeals to his own experience, noting that “[he has] never seen anything like that [in his
career]” (line 32). West then begins to abductively reason, or hypothesize, the cause of
Zimmerman’s wounds in order to depict Martin as the aggressor rather than the victim. Claiming
that the knots on Zimmerman’s head were a result of “having [his] head slammed into concrete,”
he makes clear that “slammed” is not hyperbolic by invoking the expertise of the state’s
consulting experts and a distinguished pathologist (lines 33-34; lines 37-39).
Returning from a break requested by the judge, West begins by reinforcing his own
credibility with the jury by contrasting his matter-of-fact style with the prosecution’s
demonstrative, emotional style. He minimizes the prosecution’s opening statement by suggesting
their passion “[got] in the way of the information before [the jury]” (line 46). In a like manner,
he asserts that the state argued “so passionately but so wrongly” that Zimmerman maliciously
pushed the gun into Martin’s chest (line 47). West, instead of eliciting the jury’s emotions, wants
to “talk about the specifics with [the jury] about forensic evidence, the science around the
gunshot…It’s not subjective” (lines 46-49). In order to undermine the state’s passionate
advances, West appeals to his own use of logic that the state is compensating for a lack of
substance with inflated language. Convincing the jury of this, in turn, enables West to speak
from much firmer, objective platform, particularly when discussing the science behind the
gunshot.

Establishing his persona as the forthright counsel, Don West can now more effectively
weaken one of the building blocks of the state’s case using clear-cut science and reasoning. This
building block—that Zimmerman was apparently dominating the fight before the gunshot—is
put in question when West daringly cites one of the state’s witness’s deposition. A witness and
neighbor, John Good would reveal that he saw Martin “straddling Zimmerman, leaning over
[him],” which West would analogize to an “MMA-style ‘ground-and-pound’” (lines 52-53).
Equally important to deciding who the aggressor was, Martin’s hands would become a focal
point of West’s opening. Since bloody hands would indicate that Martin became aggressive,
West employs causal reasoning—which is a risk since it can be objectionable—to propose why
no blood was evident on his hands during the autopsy. Blood, according to West, inevitably
came from one of two sources: one, from Zimmerman’s face or nose; or two, from clutching his
chest after the bullet hit him, evident in the photo of his body. A type of inductive reasoning,
West wields a common-cause relationship to explain the absence of blood—the medical
examiners’ failure to put bags on Martin’s hands. By demanding that clutching his chest—which
is corroborated by photo evidence—would have left some blood, West is able to unequivocally
discredit the medical examiners as witnesses before they even take the stand. Further, West
employs syllogism, a form of deductive reasoning, to suggest whose scream—Zimmerman’s or
Martin’s—was identified over one of the emergency phone calls:
Premise One: Common sense suggests the person screaming is being attacked, not
attacking (line 71)
Premise Two: Martin’s father said, ‘No, that’s not my son.’ (line 72)
Assuming each premise is true, West’s syllogistic reasoning concludes that the person screaming
was Zimmerman, and therefore he was the one being attacked.
His valid reasoning notwithstanding, West regularly goes beyond what the evidence will
show. To this point, he’s mainly gotten away with commenting on the evidence and the law.

Now, however, commenting on how jury instructions will delineate self-defense and that it
considers the physical abilities of Martin and Zimmerman has led to improper opening
objections. Sustained objections, the judge has made clear that such comments are for closing
arguments. Careful not to pester the jury with repeatedly sustained objections, he then—and
finally—spells out his central theme: Trayvon Martin was armed with “a concrete sidewalk, no
different than a brick” (lines 77-78). A secondary theme, West leaves the jury with a reminder
that he is the straightforward attorney that concerns himself only with the facts, “no matter how
passionate [the state’s] opening might be” (lines 78-79).
Alachua County Defense Attorney Interviews
Defense Attorney X
Comparative analysis is critical when discussing the language employed by defense
attorneys since stylistic differences in rhetorical approach are so prevalent. Likewise, individual
style is ultimately the dynamic that shapes an opening argument and brings to life the likeness of
the delivery. In an interview with an anonymous Alachua County defense attorney, referred to as
Attorney X, this was undoubtedly found to be the case. In an unparalleled fashion, Attorney X
once took the “give-and-take” strategy to new levels by essentially throwing his client’s
character and decision-making under the bus to the judge. It is, thinkably, the role of the
prosecution to attack the character of a defendant where character criticism is relevant and
appropriate (i.e. fraud charges). Attorney X, however, felt that—because his client had such an
egregious unethical record—it was conducive to get ahead of the prosecutor and establish his
client’s moral fallibility. Given that Attorney X is well-experienced and seasoned in trial
advocacy, this tactic would likely have been avoided by an inexperienced or unconfident trial

attorney. Hence, it is clear how experience and confidence influence the individualism of defense
strategies.
A second point of discussion in the interview addressed how the use of causal reasoning
in trial advocacy compares with other academic disciplines. In social science research,
correlation, not causation, is the realistic aim. Causation, on the other hand, tantalizes researchers
since two variables must be so closely associated in order to claim causation. In legal defense,
causation is similarly aspired in proposing alternate hypotheses to explain crimes. In research
and criminal defense alike, the roadblocks in claiming causation are often daunting. An
inexperienced attorney, consequently, may claim causation in an opening argument to “see what
sticks.” This is problematic, according to our interview of Attorney X: causal reasoning is often
objectionable for facts not in evidence. If the evidence does not clearly lay a roadmap of causes
and effects, then it is best, per our interview, to suggest an influence rather than a cause.
Another point of interest in the interview mentioned the number of objections, or lack
thereof, to defense attorney Don West’s opening statement. It was asked of Attorney X as to
whether certain types of cases spark more objections in an opening statement than others. His
response proposed that, in high-profile, televised cases, prosecutors don’t want to seem like a
“pest.” Additionally, most objections in a high-profile case would likely be raised in pretrial
procedures, according to our interview. Lack of experience, further, would give reason for little
objections on behalf of the prosecution—but this seemingly was not the case in Zimmerman, as
the team of prosecutors was well-conditioned.
Because of the possibility that it won’t be entered into evidence later in the trial, evidence
introduced in an opening statement may spawn a mistrial. Don West, by the same token, took a
considerable risk by introducing evidence in his opening statement, including but not limited to
images of Zimmerman’s battered face. It was then asked in the interview whether Attorney X

regularly takes similar risks in his opening statement. His response was clear: “Let the jury
know; rarely show [the evidence in opening].” In his practice, he explained that he usually
avoids introducing evidence in an opening because, unlike in high-profile cases, the judges are
not under pressure to allow evidence to slip in. In high-profile cases, political pressures—
including judicial elections—often penetrate the courtroom and influence the judge’s decision-
making in admitting evidence. Nevertheless, Attorney X made clear that introducing evidence in
an opening is a greater risk for the state than it is for a defense, again invoking political
influences that hold the state to an expectation that a guilty verdict, not a mistrial, will be
reached.
A series of miscellaneous questions regarding trial strategy were then asked of Attorney
X. It was asked where the defense attorney typically reveals his theme in his opening statements.
From his experience, he felt that juries “aren’t that gullible” and that themes are often taught to
mock trial students in order to focus and animate their arguments. It was then asked of if he
regularly employs go-to phrases and expressions in order to evade prosecutorial objections. It
was explained that, although dodging prosecutorial objections in an opening statement can be
difficult, there are rhetorical “safety nets” that can be exercised in order to preempt these
objections. For instance, an argumentative objection can be forestalled in an opening statement
by claiming “you [the jury] will hear” instead of claiming what can be inferred from the
evidence—inferences are for closing arguments. This safety net is often utilized by Don West in
his opening statement. Objections aside, the interviewer went on to ask what factors are
considered when deciding whether or not a client should testify. In short, his clients testify a lot,
as it “fits with [Attorney X’s] advocacy style.” Naturally, it was asked that, if he were
representing George Zimmerman, would he encourage Zimmerman to testify. Despite
Zimmerman’s decision not to testify, our defense attorney proposed that because of

Zimmerman’s cooperation with law enforcement prior to and throughout the case, it only made
sense to have him testify.
Defense Attorney Y
In our second sit-down with another Alachua County defense attorney, referred to as
Attorney Y, a different perspective was presented. This defense attorney underlined two
fundamental considerations in trial advocacy: one, the case is “all about the client”; yet two,
attorney confidence “is the display.” When discussing the absence of objections in the opening
of Zimmerman, Attorney Y noted that it is seemingly more difficult to object in an opening
because you “can’t anticipate every bit of testimony” as opposed to objecting in direct or cross
examination. Rather than anticipating testimony, the opening is a “roadmap for the jury.”
Like Don West’s thematic delivery, this particular defense attorney employs his
alternative hypotheses as his theme. In a shaken baby case where Attorney Y represented the
father, the alternative hypothesis—that there must have been another person that came in contact
with the baby—was the initial theme. The opening statement, Attorney Y noted, is a “brochure
for the jury.”
Drawing parallels with Don West’s opening statement style, Attorney Y asserted that, “in
good faith,” he typically does introduce evidence in his opening statement unlike Attorney X.
This is, however, still assuming the risk that the evidence does not get admitted later in trial. To
circumvent this risk, Attorney Y explained that it is best to stay within the rules of evidence and
limit any introduction of evidence in an opening to “demonstrative aids,” including pictures (of
Zimmerman’s face, for instance), charts, and graphs.
President Barak Obama’s Remarks on the Zimmerman Verdict
Rhetorical Précis

In his address following the Zimmerman verdict, President Barak Obama asserts that—
although deeply seeded racial disparities often contaminate law enforcement—a re-examination
of our policies and introspection of our values may open a gateway for hope in the future.
President Obama supports his argument by highlighting the ambiguity in both our laws and our
sentiments while also proposing multiple directives moving forward. President Obama’s purpose
is not to denounce the Zimmerman jury or trial; rather, it is to “talk a little bit about context” and
how people have responded emotionally so that the racial dialogue can expand (lines 24-25).
President Obama speaks in a solemnly diplomatic tone for Americans that find themselves
shrouded in cynicism following the verdict and other racially concerning developments.
Rhetorical Analysis
President Obama opens by addressing the “incredible grace” and “dignity” that the
Martin family has demonstrated (line 16). Explicitly stating his purpose early on—to discuss
context and feelings rather than to criticize the Florida judicial system—serves as a rhetorical
tactic to open the ears of an audience that may feel no need to discuss the far-reaching
implications of the Trayvon Martin shooting. Had he begun to suggest legislative changes from
the onset, he may have politicized the speech rather than tapped into the hearts and minds of the
American people. A swift transition into an emotional appeal immediately grabs the attention of
the audience, insisting Trayvon Martin “could have been my son” or “could have been me 35
years ago” (lines 26-27). Encouraging listeners to put themselves in a black man’s shoes amid a
culture of racial profiling compels the audience to reflect on something they may not have had
before:
There are very few African American men in this country who haven't had the experience
of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There
are very few African American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the
street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me -- at least before
I was a senator. There are very few African Americans who haven't had the experience of

getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath
until she had a chance to get off. That happens often. (lines 31-37)
Here, President Obama reinforces his ruminative tone with a subtle yet effective rhetorical
device—epistrophe—by repeating “that [includes] me” at the end of each claim of fact. This
repetition, further, is paradoxical in that even the President of the United States has experienced
such profiling, giving an even greater reason for inspecting where we are today culturally.
President Obama progresses his argument by making a claim of value that “it’s important
to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of
experiences and a history that doesn’t go away” (lines 29-30). Providing this lens to look through
allows people who don’t share this history with a new perspective to consider this issue through.
Nonetheless, Obama concedes the counterargument that young black men are disproportionately
implicated in criminal activity, making known that the black community isn’t naïve to this. Once
he feels that the perspective of the audience has shifted, President Obama goes on to make four
claims of policy, or a push for legislators to take action in order to extend his message beyond
merely “thoughts and prayers.” To conclude, he assures the audience that each generation
“seems to be making progress,” a positive cap on a somber issue (line 128). In evaluation, the
address’s reflective stillness effectively urges the audience to revisit the cultural cohesion of
American society today.

Rhetoric in Law and Society

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Rhetoric in Law and Society

Similar to Rhetoric in Law and Society (8)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Rhetoric in Law and Society