Legal communication, often dominated by complex legalese, has historically played a pivotal role in shaping the outcomes of high-profile cases and broader societal understandings of justice. This paper explores the evolution and effectiveness of communication tactics used within legal contexts, with particular attention to how these tactics function cognitively for lay audiences such as jurors. Drawing on interdisciplinary insights from cognitive science, psychology, and linguistics, the paper examines how verbal and nonverbal communication can either facilitate or hinder legal comprehension. Through historical case studies including the trials of John Brown, Susan B. Anthony, the Scopes Trial, Nuremberg, Brown v. Board of Education, the O.J. Simpson trial, and the trial of Socrates this study investigates how rhetorical strategies, visual communication, courtroom theatrics, and media influence have shaped public and judicial perception. The paper further considers the modern implications of these tactics in the digital age, with particular emphasis on coercive versus non-coercive methods of persuasion and the enduring relevance of rhetorical frameworks in the construction of legal arguments. Ultimately, it advocates for a more cognitively attuned approach to legal communication, fostering greater transparency, inclusivity, and justice. Keywords: Legal Communication, Rhetoric in Law, Cognitive Comprehension, Courtroom Persuasion, Historical Trials, Visual Rhetoric, Legal Laypersons, Media and Law, Forensic Rhetoric.
Kagaba Amina G. (Wed,) studied this question.