'Rhetorical Analysis Of The Good Wife'

In the 18th episode of first series in TV drama The Good Wife, the lawyers tried their best in creating the story that fit into the evidence they have to prove their client to be not guilty. The article, Rhetoric and result in the Bobby Seale Trial, offers an explanation for why lawyers focus so much on creating a story for their clients, a phenomenon that is featured in the TV episode.
The author asserts that the lawyers’ role in the judicial system is that they polish the accounts of their clients’ side to appeal the jury in order to win. “My job was, and is, to help clients formulate the most persuasive story from the evidentiary materials available”. However, he also stated, “There is only a compromise, a best available fit between narratives, between the stories that our clients have to tell and what it is in their interest for a jury to bear.” When the true narrative doesn’t capture the jury’s eyes, they have to make a compromise in treating testimonies.
In this article, the author, David Rosen used the Gabriel rebellion and Bobby Seale’s trial as examples to demonstrate that the desire to win trials makes the lawyers embellish their clients’ testimonies, which could lead to positive results, while not doing so will lead to …show more content…
They started with making their expert’s theory to much the story of the boy in the case to be the perpetrator. With more evidence being discovered, they straightly altered their story from accusing the boy to the gun shot was self-inflicted and purely accidental. Their actions corresponds with the lawyers’ belief stated in the article. However, this also blinded them as the lawyers in the TV show overlooked the fact that as regular people, the jury values the details more than a consistent