PHL 100, Paper Topic:Distinguishing Argument from Testimony: Marcia Clark and the O.J. Simpson Trial
OJ Simpson case-a video review:https://news.yahoo.com/now-i-get-it-oj-simpson-trial-explained-by-kaye-130354155763.html
On page 38 of Waller’s text book (in the box at the bottom) we read about the O.J. Simpson case and Prosecutor Marcia Clark’s closing arguments to the Jury.
You are being asked to rule on whether Marcia Clark was in fact providing personal Testimony or whether she was providing an argument to the jury that they should convict O.J. Simpson.
Recall that arguments have three parts 1-2-3! 1. A conclusion, backed up by 2. Premises that have a 3. clear relation of deductive proof or inductive support.The first thing to do is to identify The Conclusion. Then ask what reasons (premises) are being offered to back-up the conclusion. If the “reasons” given depend upon the character of a persons testimony the person is not giving an argument but basically making ad hominem claims saying “You can trust me (or whoever) in what I am saying”These are ad hominem presentations (“to the person”) Not arguments. Arguments need NO reference at all to the character of the presenter (remember the monkeys that accidentally typed out “ All Men are Mortal, Socrates is a man; Therefore Socrates is mortal.” (A sound argument! Even if typed out entirely by accident from a group of monkeys!!)
So how do you rule? Was Marcia Clark improperly putting her own testimony to the jury or was she properly providing an argument about why the jury should convict O.J. Simpson?
From p. 38 of our text; Waller, Bruce. “Critical Thinking. Consider the verdict. 6th edition.”
Instructions: Take the case given below, and place yourself in the position of the Judge hearing from Prosecutor Marcia Clark presenting final arguments (in the OJ Simpson trial (See video linked above for a review of this case).
First discuss the concept of an argument (noting that lawyers and thus, prosecutors, are supposed to be giving arguments not “testimony”What is the difference between giving an argument and giving testimony?Why is it a flaw on the lawyer’s part to provide testimony rather than argument (see p. 37 of Waller’s text especially on this).Finally you need to decideWhether Marcia Clark was improperly putting her
own testimony before the jury? Or was she, quite properly, simply giving an argument?
How do you rule? Why? (i.e., triple-A treatment here: “Articulate, Analyze, Argue!!!)
The essay should be 300-750 words of clear prose (not an outline).Written in Word for
Windows only (No pdfs or google docs, etc..)The due date will be 2 weeks from the posting date so plenty of time to complete the assignment. Due date will be May 3rd, Monday.
Lastly please sign the academic integrity statement copied below and attach to your final version of the essay
Here is the case from Waller’s text, p.38:
How Do You Rule?
In her closing arguments to the jury in the O. J. Simpson murder trial, prosecutor Marcia Clark made the following remarks: “I started on that side of counsel table [referring to the lawyers for the defense]. I was a defense attorney. I know what the ethical obligations
are of a prosecutor. I took a cut in pay to join
this office, because I believe in this job.
I believe in doing it fairly and doing it right
and I like the luxury of being a prosecutor.
Because I have the luxury on any case of going
to the judge and saying, “Guess what, Your
Honor, dismiss it, it’s not here.”
Ladies and Gentlemen, I can come to you
and I can say, “Don’t convict, it’s not here.”
I have that right. I have that luxury. This job
gives me that luxury. It doesn’t give me a lot of
money but it gives me that luxury. I can get up
in the morning and look at myself in the mirror
and say I tell you the truth, I will never ask for a
conviction unless I should, unless the law says
I must, unless he is proven guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt on credible evidence.
At that point in her closing argument, the
defense intervened with an objection. The defense
claimed that Marcia Clark’s remarks were improper,
and that she should be forced to retract them,
because she was improperly givingtestimonyabout
her own convictions concerning Simpson’s guilt
rather than presenting argument based on the
evidence. Marcia Clark asserted that there was
nothing improper in her closing argument. She
denied that she was giving any testimony concerning
her own beliefs; instead, she claimed, she was
simply giving arguments based on well-known
principles governing legal ethics and the ethics of
prosecutors.
Was Marcia Clark improperly putting her
own testimony before the jury? Or was she, quite
properly, simply giving an argument?How do
you rule?
Intellectual Honesty Certification
The integrity statement is as follows: This statement is required to be completed and submitted with all written work
I certify the following:
1. My work for this course will beentirely my own, with any words and/or ideas from other sources (print, Web, other media, other individuals or groups) being properly cited and referenced.
2. This work has not been nor will be submitted to satisfy the requirements of any other course.
Signed………………………………………………………………………………………………
">