About the speaker 

Svitlana Rak is a legal scholar and lecturer in the Department of Law at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. She holds a PhD in Law, and her research interests lie at the intersection of legal argumentation, rhetoric, and criminal law. She is also deeply engaged in legal education, with a particular focus on the development of soft skills, particularly public speaking, and their role within legal contexts. 

Currently, Dr. Rak is the principal investigator of the research project “To Be or Not to Be Eloquent During a Trial?”, which explores whether persuasive courtroom oration, beyond strictly legal reasoning, can influence the level of empathy, perceived credibility, and sentencing decisions made by judicial actors. An expert in public speaking and communication, she is also a certified Erickson coach. 

In addition to her academic work, she coaches the University of Gothenburg’s Moot Court Competition Team, helping students cultivate advanced advocacy and rhetorical skills.

Abstract

In this paper, the relationship between legally irrelevant factors in the courtroom and judicial decision-making in Swedish criminal trials is explored, with particular focus on the persuasive role of defence lawyers’ oratorical and non-verbal techniques. This issue is especially relevant in a legal culture that places strong emphasis on objectivity and the formal legal reasoning of judges, including lay judges. Yet, despite this objective ideal, there remains an inherent room for discretion in judicial practice where persuasive performance may subtly influence perceptions of credibility, empathy, and ultimately sentencing decisions.

The paper’s aim is to shed some light on whether and how courtroom oration can affect the cognitive responses of both professional and lay judges. Two research questions guide the study:
1) do lawyers’ oratorical techniques influence the outcomes of criminal trials, and 2) is there a difference in how these techniques affect professional judges compared to lay judges?

I explore how legal concepts are not only articulated through formal reasoning but also embodied in the lawyer’s presence through 1) voice, 2) nonverbal communication, and 3) enthusiasm as the emotion of conviction. The analysis includes a description of how these elements are interpreted by both professional and lay judges during trials. The paper concludes with final thoughts and reflections on how courtroom oration is situated along a spectrum, ranging from a persuasive oratorical technique to a legally irrelevant factor within judicial proceedings.

The material for this study I examine through an experimental approach that includes two mock trials based on the same criminal case, differing only in the delivery style of the defence lawyer. Additionally, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 judges and 10 lay judges following the mock trials.