结案陈词为控辩双方最后、也是真正面对陪审团进行最充分、最自由、最详细陈述的机会,其叙事的战略重要性在辛普森一案中尤为突出。该案中,辩方在故事主角的选派、叙事组织结构以及凸显事件或状态时所采取的措施等方面,均较控方更胜一筹,陪审团因此裁决辛普森无罪。本文从从法庭叙事的角度为被告方何以无罪提供相应的语言层面上的支撑,为叙事学在法学领域的运用提供一个思路,而法庭叙事研究也将拓宽法官或陪审团看待事实问题的视野,有助于案件判决的准确性。 The closing arguments are the last of both prosecutors and defenders, and they also really face the jury’s fullest, freer, most detailed statement of opportunity. The strategic importance of the narrative is particularly prominent in Simpson’s case. In that case, the defense was superior to the prosecution in the selection of the protagonist of the story, the structure of the narrative, and the measures taken to highlight the incident or state. The jury therefore ruled that Simpson was innocent. This article from the court narrative point of view for the defendant why the innocence of the language to provide the appropriate level of support for the use of narratology in the field of jurisprudence to provide a train of thought and court narrative research will broaden the field of vision of judges or juries look at the issue of fact , Which helps to judge the accuracy of the case.