English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Closing arguments in Dutch trials are representative of the adversarial part of the Dutch criminal justice system. The prosecutor and the defense lawyer design these arguments to persuade the judges of their opposing versions of the criminal events. Both parties draw on written documents such as the police record and on the interrogations during trial to present their perspectives on the case. References to these prior statements often take the form of reported speech. Prosecutors and defense lawyers subtly frame and change these statements. In this article I draw on insights from conversation analysis and discursive psychology to explore the way direct quotations are used to present a point of view. Most importantly, I will demonstrate how direct quotations are framed and embedded in a three-step rhetorical structure by prosecutors and defense lawyers.

The embedding of reported speech in a rhetorical structure by prosecutors and defense lawyers in Dutch trials