Examining Argument in a Naturally Occurring Jury Deliberation

Abstract

In this article, the authors examine argument in the interactions of members of a naturally occurring jury ( State of Ohio v. Mark Ducic). Using the structurational concept of contradictions and a thematic analysis, the authors examine the forms and functions of group argument structures and the role of argument structuring in the jury’s penalty deliberation. Findings are discussed in terms of theoretical and methodological implications for structuration argument theory.