Abstract Opening statements in criminal trials serve as a crucial stage in which attorneys present competing accounts of events and establish narrative frameworks that shape how jurors interpret the case. This article develops a linguistic framework for analysing temporal structuring in courtroom storytelling, applying Ricœur’s theory of narrative time to the study of legal argumentation. Focusing on the separate North Carolina murder trials of Grant and Amanda Hayes (2013–2014), the analysis compares how the prosecution and defence use episodic (chronological) and configurational (integrative) dimensions of narrative to construct agency, intent, and culpability. The findings show that the prosecution builds a coherent, linear sequence emphasizing planning and shared motive, whereas the defence fragments the temporal order to introduce ambiguity and redistribute blame. By showing how attorneys’ temporal organization functions as a persuasive resource, the study advances understanding of narrative time in courtroom storytelling and offers broader insights into discursive, conversational, and argumentative practice both within legal contexts and beyond.
Blewitt et al. (Sat,) studied this question.