ABSTRACT
This chapter shows how courtroom persuasion by lawyers is 'rhetorical' in the historical meaning of 'rhetoric', which combines eloquence with strategic patterns of reasoning and expected standards of proof. It presents an outline of moves and structures that together make up the advocacy involved in legal proceedings. Because modern courtroom speeches by lawyers are often still perceived as grand oratory or rhetoric, it is helpful to set the development of legal rhetoric in historical context. One important feature of the subsequent history of rhetoric was a series of philosophical controversies surrounding the role of verbal skill. Changing styles of legal advocacy – from the now often parodied grand oratory of trials in some periods to the low-key interaction of other kinds of tribunal – reflect a practical connection in advocacy between purpose, style and outcome. The chapter presents an extract from Edmund Burke's opening speech in 1788 in a famous impeachment hearing against the governor general of India, Warren Hastings.
