Costruction of the judicial defense speech: based on the material of court speeches by Y.S. Kiselev

The construction of a public speech is one of the most important components of creating a convincing oratorical performance. Despite the constant interest of researchers in the challenges of constructing a court speech, the arrangement of structural elements, the issue remains unresolved in practical aspect: modern court speakers need recommendations that would contribute to creating effective defense statements. The purpose of this research is to analyze the composition of successful court speeches of the famous Soviet lawyer Y.S. Kiselev, aimed at identifying the features of arrangement of the material, factors that condition this or that disposition, and on this basis to identify various options for the arrangement of content elements contributing to the creation of a convincing speech. Using the method of compositional analysis, as well as rhetorical analysis, descriptive and structural methods, we investigate thirteen effective judicial defense speeches by Y.S. Kiselev. Having analyzed the types of introductions used by him, we have established a high degree of viability of using hyped up or unexpected beginning, as well as conditionality of the choice of the type of introduction by the prosecutor, readiness of the audience to perceive the defense speech, and attitude of the audience to the circumstances of the case. The analysis of the main part of Kiselev’s speeches allows to identify the micro themes presented in all his defense statements, as well as conditionality of a number of micro themes by the circumstances of the case, the arguments of the prosecution, and the chosen line of defense. The conclusion reveals structural elements in all the speeches of the well-known lawyer under study: a clearly expressed position of the defense in the case, a pathetic and educational moment, and an appeal to the court for leniency or acquittal of the defendant. In general, the construction of the defense speech is conditioned by the circumstances of the case, the position of the prosecution, the chosen line of defense, the specifics of the audience, as well as the moral qualities, erudition and communicative skills of the speaker.