클라랜스 대로우의 법정변론
Oral Argumentation of Clarence Darrow
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
이 글에서는 미국 최고의 형사변호사로 알려진 클라렌스 대로우의 법정변론 기법이 키케로의 변호 스타일과 닮았다는 주장을 검토해 보았다. 대로우의 변론기법은 사건의 사실관계를 역사적 맥락으로 대체하는 것, 독설과 감정에 호소하는 방법을 적극 이용하는 것, 그리고 표준적인 구성을 완성해놓고 사건에 따라 조금씩 변용해서 쓰는 것으로 요약된다. 결론으로 대로우의 변론이 키케로 스타일이라는 평가는 착상 단계에서 사실관계가 불리한 때는 사건의 배경으로 대체한다는 키케로의 변론지침과 관련되는 주로 것이고 표현 영역과는 전혀 무관함을 알 수 있었다. 그 외는 키케로의 변론지침의 재연이나 반복이 아니라 대로우 나름의 변론기법으로 평가할 수 있다. 구성이 치밀하지 않고 소재가 다양하지 않으며 판에 박힌 레퍼토리를 사용한 것은 약점으로 볼 수 있다. 그러나 대로우의 변론방식은 법률전문가가 아닌 배심원들을 상대로 변론하는데 있어 효과적이었다. 대로우의 법정변론이 우리에 주는 함의는, 첫째 자신에 맞는 변론전략과 기법이 무엇인지에 관해 고전수사학은 참고가 가능할 뿐 맹목적인 계승은 곤란하다는 것이 확인된다. 둘째 국민참여재판에서 변호인은 법률전문가가 아닌 일반 배심원을 상대로 변론해야 하므로 종전처럼 전문법관을 염두에 둔 변론 전략은 근본적으로 수정되어야 하는데, 여기에 대로우의 사례는 큰 참고가 될 수 있다.
Abstract
This article aims to reconsider the argument that defense techniques of Clarence Darrow, who is widely known as one of the Great Defence Lawyers of the Unites States, resemble Ciceronian Advocacy. Darrow’s argumentation skills can be summarized as follows: first, substitution of facts and details of the case with social and historical contexts; second, taking good advantage of invectives and appealing to emotions; and third, using established standard frames of argument to cases with minute modification. The evaluation that Darrow’s defense is equivalent to the Ciceronian one mainly concerns the fact that his defense skills often replace “facts” with “background” of cases only insofar as facts of the case are unfavorable to a defense lawyer at the invention stage as in Ciceronian Instructions; yet it does not applies to that of a style stage. In addition, Darrow’s singular defense technique has revealed some weaknesses including undetailed composition, the lack of variety, and stereotypical repertoire. Nonetheless, those weaknesses also worked as very effective defense to persuade jury members who have no legal expertise. Moreover, turning to common law principle of jury-nullification can be also counted as key factors in winning a case. Underlying implications from reflection on Darrow’s trial advocacy are as follows. First, although classical rhetoric can be quite a useful reference and a good guide leading to a perfect-fit defense strategy and techniques, blind worship should certainly be avoided. Second, a defense lawyer, who should plead to members of the layman jury, not to a legal expert in Civil Participation in Criminal Trials in Korea, should take into account fundamental and overall modification to the existing defense strategy focusing on persuading the bench alone. Therefore, Darrow’s defence skills could be effective as a great model or reference to oral argumentation in the courtroom in the era of Civil Participation in Criminal Trials.
참고문헌 (26)
- 김형곤, "대로(Clarence Darrow)와 적색공포", 미국사연구, (6) (1997)
- Aristotle, "On Rhetoric : A Theory of Civic Discussion" (2007), Oxford University Press
- Cicero, "De Partitione Oratoria" (1942), Harvard University Press
- Cicero, "De Inventione" (1949), Harvard University Press
- Darrow, Clarence, "The Story of My Life" (2015), Ulwencreutz Media
- Geis, Gilbert, "Crimes of the Century : From Leopold and Loeb to O.J. Simpson" (1998), Northwestern University Press
- Hall, Jon, "Cicero’s Use of Judicial Theater" (2014), The University of Michigan Press
- Jensen, Richard J., "Clarence Darrow : The Creation of American Myth" (1992), Greenwood Press
- Longaker, Mark Garrett, "Rhetorical Analysis: A Brief Guide for Writer" (2010), Longman
- Quintilian, "The Orator’s Education(Book5)" (2001), Harvard University Press
- Ross, David, "Advocacy" (2007), Cambridge University Press
- Spence, Gerry, "Win Your Casee" (2005), St. Martn Griffin
- Tierney, Kevin, "Darrow: A Biography" (1979), Crowell
- Usher, Stephen, "Cicero’s Speeches : The Critic in Action" (2008), Oxbow Books
- Weinberg, Arthur, "Attorney for the damned : Clarence Darrow in the courtroom" (1989), The University of Chicago Press
- Bennett, Mark W., "Eight Traits of Great Trial Lawyers: A Federal Judge’s View on How to Shed the Moniker ‘I Am a Litigator’", Review of Litigation, 33(1) (2014)
- Fass, Paula S., "Making and Remaking an Event : The Leopold and Loeb Case in American Culture", The Journal of American History, 80(3) (1993)
- Ginger, Lay, "Clarence Seward Darrow", The Antioch Review, 13(1) (1953)
- Howe, Scott W., "Reassessing the Individualization Mandate in Capital Sentencing : Darrow’s Defence of Leopold and Loeb", Iowa L. Rev, 79(5) (1994)
- Kirby, John T., "Roman eloquence : Rhetoric in Society and Literature" (1997), Routledge
- Larson, Edward J., "The Oxford Companion to American Law" (2002), Oxford University Press
- Maloney, Martin, "Forensic Speaking of Clarence Darrow", Speech Monographs, 14 (1947)
- Mannion, Malachy E., "Objections Overruled: The Trial Advocacy Course Should Be Mandatory", Pace L. Rev., 30 (2010)
- Prill, Paul, "Cicero in Theory and Practice : The Securing of Good Will in the Exordia of Five Forensic Speeches", A Journal of History of Rhetoric, 4, pp.2~ (1986)
- Singh, Rohni J., "Clarence Darrow, ‘Plea for Leopold and Loeb’, Cook County Criminal Court, Chicago, Illnois (22, 23 and 25 August, 1924)", Voices of Democracy, 9 (2014)
- Uelmen, Gerald F., "Who Is the Lawyer of the Century", Loy. L.A. L. Rev., 33 (2000)