Abstract

A major focus of the study of courtroom interaction in the fields of sociolinguistics and discourse analysis has been the discursive strategies that lawyers use during trials. While acknowledging the role of rhetorical skill in influencing hearers' perceptions, this paper seeks to demonstrate that language has its limits, and that the speaker's personality and identity are key factors in determining how a verbal presentation will be received. The opening statement given by John Allen Muhammad, the ‘Beltway Sniper’, acting as his own lawyer at his murder trial, incorporated many recommended strategies and was surprisingly well crafted, but was widely derided by media commentators. Through a comparison of Muhammad's opening statement with similar presentations delivered by celebrated attorneys, this paper will explore the relationships between language, personality, and identity in the construction of legal persuasion. Specifically, this paper will argue that Muhammad's identity as a criminal defendant, coupled with his inability to project his personality in a way that would command the attention of his hearers, set the stage for a negative reception of his remarks that their content could not overcome.