Legal communication scholars agree that the opening and closing statements in a criminal trial significantly influence the outcome of a lawsuit. The opening statement can frame a dispute and present the schema through which the evidence presented can be filtered (Spiecker, & Worthington, 2003). Both the defense and state attorneys give their opening and closing arguments during a trial. This presents them with an opportunity to create a structure through which the jurors can analyze the trial evidence. The jurors can then make a reasonable and just conclusion based on the evidence presented. In some cases, however, the jurors' preconceptions might supersede the schema presented by the attorneys. It is, therefore, crucial to understand how an individual's schema may influence decision making.
Psychologists describe a schema as a cognitive structure or concept that enables an individual to consolidate and construe information. Schemas allow and individual to interpret a massive amount of information available in a short time (Gordon, 2013). These mental structures, however, may cause an individual to ignore relevant information and focus on what confirms their preconceptions. The established ideas about the world make it difficult for an individual to accommodate new information. Schemas can, therefore, limit an individual's ability to understand new information. For instance, some schemas can be stereotypes that may cause misconception of the actions of specific individuals (Gordon, 2013). In a criminal trial, individual schemas may supersede the schemas presented in an opening statement.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Individual schemas determine the information to notice in an opening statement. For instance, I would most likely notice information that aligns with my preconceptions. It would also be more likely that I remember information that is consistent with my established schemas on the nature of the trial. I would likely ignore crucial details during the opening statement. Psychologists argue that established schemas can persevere even if conflicting information is presented (Gordon, 2013). This means that my schemas can supersede the schemas presented by the attorneys and influence my decision making as a juror. The stronger the perseverance effect of an individual’s schemas, the more likely they will impact their decision making (Stolle, & Slain, 1997). This means that if my preconceptions are strong enough, they may cause rejection of a schema provided by the attorneys. This is because individual schemas tend to persist even in the face of evidence.
References
Gordon, S. (2013). Through the Eyes of Jurors: The Use of Schemas in the Application of Plain-Language Jury Instructions. Hastings LJ, 64, 643.
Spiecker, S. C., & Worthington, D. L. (2003). The influence of opening statement/closing argument organizational strategy on juror verdict and damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 27(4), 437-456.
Stolle, D. P., & Slain, A. J. (1997). Standard form contracts and contract schemas: A preliminary investigation of the effects of exculpatory clauses on consumers' propensity to sue. Behavioral sciences & the law, 15(1), 83-94.
