Strategic Manoeuvring in the Depp-Heard Defamation Trial 2022: Dual Dialectical Goals and a Topical Shift

Hédi Virág Csordás; István Danka

doi:10.1007/s10503-025-09651-6

Argumentation Mar 2025 Open Access

Strategic Manoeuvring in the Depp-Heard Defamation Trial 2022: Dual Dialectical Goals and a Topical Shift

Hédi Virág Csordás Budapest University of Technology and Economics ; István Danka Budapest University of Technology and Economics

Abstract

Abstract In pragma-dialectics, a study of legal reasoning analyses judicial judgements’ dialectical and rhetorical aspects. Most analytical studies of legal reasoning focus on the role of judges and their decision-making mechanisms. In our study, we focus on the strategic manoeuvring of the opposing parties. Depending on the context, parties may have to justify their decision to litigants, a professional audience, and the public in rhetorically and dialectically different ways. What makes strategic manoeuvring special in judicial trials is that rhetorical aims (winning the debate) and dialectical aims (convincing the jury), in contrast with debates where parties dialectically aim at resolving a dispute by reaching consensus, are not in conflict. We analyse the Depp ctr. Heard trial 2022, focusing on the parties’ dialectical potential in cases when rhetorical aspects play an important role in addition to objective evidence required by the legal framework. Depp’s party started the trial with a strategic movement we shall call as a ‘topical shift’, doubling their starting position, aiming at dual dialectical goals, and hence also beginning a new debate parallel with the apparently only one by introducing a not directly relevant factor into the debate. Although other factors also played a role in Depp’s victory, setting up his position in the confrontation stage this way was decisive for the trial’s outcome: Heard’s party, following a traditional route, joined actively in one of the dual debates only, effectively giving up the extra debate started by Depp. This way, analysing the trial offers wider consequences to how to understand strategic manoeuvring in judicial trials, and in general as well.

Journal: Argumentation
Published: 2025-03-01
DOI: 10.1007/s10503-025-09651-6
CompPile
Open Access: OA PDF Hybrid
Topics: rhetorical criticism argument
Export: BibTeX RIS

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (10)

Van Eemeren (2010)

Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory…

↗
Van Eemeren (2002)

Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis

↗
Van Eemeren (2014)

Handbook of Argumentation Theory

↗
Van Eemeren, Frans H., Peter, Houtlosser. 2001. Strategic Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof. OSSA Conferen…
Eveline T Feteris (1999)

A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions

Show all 10 →

Eveline Feteris (2009)

Feteris, Eveline, and Harm Kloosterhuis. 2009. The analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation: approachs …

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric
Eveline T Feteris (2017)

Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial…

↗
Van Eemeren Frans (2009)

Examining Argumentation in Context Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering

↗
Scott Jacobs (2015)

Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse Fifty Contributions to the De…
Douglas N Walton (1989)

A Handbook for Critical Argumentation

CrossRef global citation count: 0 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Strategic Manoeuvring in the Depp-Heard Defamation Trial 2022: Dual Dialectical Goals and a Topical Shift

Abstract

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

References (10)

Related Articles