I found Kym Worthy's speech very well written. She touched on a lot of things I think Detroit has been irritated about, and she said it perfectly. She also made it very clear that the case was not about the sex or the texts which was very important to point out.

After reading her speech I concluded that Kwame Kilpatrick and Christine Beatty are being charged for perjury, but I was confused when Mr. Brandt asked for the charges. So I looked it up and found that they are also being charged for charged for "obstruction and willful misconduct in the text-message scandal." Since I only realized they are being charged for perjury after reading the speech, I will focus on that.

When Worthy uses ethics she is speaking about the importance of witnesses and also giving a broad definition of an oath. She says that it is vital that witnesses only speak the truth because their lies could have a great impact on the results of the case. She also gave both a definition of what an oath is and what an oath is not to highlight the importance of truthfulness. Truthfulness is an important part of character and everyone understands what is expected of someone that is truthful. She appeals to the the ethics by discussing the importance of the truth and she does it very well.

Worthy uses logos when talking about the justice system and the importance of oaths. She says,

"The fundamental principles of the justice system are fairly simple – they
aren’t hard. We learned them all as children:

Tell the truth
Take responsibility for your actions
Admit when you are wrong
Be fair and play fair
Don’t take or use things that aren’t yours
There are consequences for bad behavior

Even children understand that lying is wrong."

By using the phrases fairly simple, learned them as children, even children know lying is wrong she shows how obvious the situation is. Using children as an example strengthens her speech because she shows the common sense behind her point. It can also be seen as a comparison. It is almost like she is saying, "Children already understand the justice system, why can't you?" This appeal to the common sense of the situation is ethos in this case.

She uses pathos directly after this when she talks about the outcome if witnesses lie and why it is such a crime if someone does. She says, "If a witness lies, innocent people can go to jail or prison, people can literally get away with murder." She then goes on to say that at the end of the witnesses have to go back to their daily lives and risk the consequences of their testimony. Some by going home and "risking their lives in drive-by shooting cases." Then she asks the question, "How can we look another witness in the eye and ask them to come in and do these things if we do not follow the law for witnesses who lie under oath?" This is a good use of pathos because it brings real people's lives into account both the witness and the suspects; she does this by using the phrase risking their lives. With pathos it is very easy to place oneself in the situation and that is why it does such a great job of impacting the listeners. They can imagine how they would feel if they or someone they loved was wrongly charged because someone lied. When reading this I could even imagine the inflection of her tone when talking about this and that is a sure sign of pathos.