A Pragmatic Study of Prosecutors’ Questioning Strategies in Simpson Case from the Perspective of the Goal-driven Principle

Abstract

This study applies the Goal-driven Principle proposed by Liao Meizhen. A case analysis method is adopted, and typical excerpts are drawn from the trial transcript of the Simpson case. Two core research questions guide the inquiry. First, what questioning strategies do prosecutors employ during cross-examination? Second, how do these strategies serve the prosecutors’ litigation purposes within the framework of the Goal-driven Principle? The findings show that prosecutors rely on four main strategies: repetition, presupposition, elicitation, and interruption. Repetition undermines witness credibility by forcing the witness to confront contradictions. Presupposition pushes controversial claims into the background, thereby constructing a narrative favorable to the prosecution. Elicitation uses frame presupposition to steer witnesses toward expected answers, though it remains vulnerable to procedural restrictions. Interruption competes for turn-taking control, yet it can be nullified by judicial intervention. This study achieves two goals. It demonstrates the applicability of the Goal-driven Principle to adversarial courtroom discourse as well as offering a workable analytical framework for understanding the pragmatic mechanisms that underlie prosecutors’ questioning strategies.