In 2004, Scott Peterson was convicted of killing his wife Laci and their unborn son Conner. There was no conclusive proof he committed the crime, only circumstantial evidence. The jurors said a major factor in their decision was Peterson’s nonverbal communication, his lack of emotional responsiveness, and “stony demeanor, even during wrenching testimony about his dead wife and son.”

Question: Should jurors be allowed to see a defendant during a trial, or should a law be put in place that sets the defendant out of the jury’s view so as to not influence their decision?

This question is an opportunity for you to use your critical thinking skills. Remember to use evidence and logic to support your answer.

Your paper should include thoughts on the language games played in a courtroom, including nonverbal language games. Consider too, what manipulative elements may be present in verbal and nonverbal language games in a courtroom. You should consider the goals of the defense verses the prosecution and how each might use language accordingly. It may be helpful to review the different tools of rhetoric like the use of hyperbole, euphemisms, dysphemisms, sarcasm, emotive language, and persuasive definitions. Are these tools of rhetoric just as available in verbal language as nonverbal language?

https://learn-us-east-1-prod-fleet01-xythos.s3.ama…

LEVEL 2 Writing

Points Possible: 25

15 points for content (opinion and evidence)

5 points for grammar, sentence and paragraph structure

5 points for writing level