Summary
Prosecutor Ippolit Kirillovitch delivers his closing argument with devastating precision, painting Dmitri as a man who collapsed before Grushenka's returning lover, then murdered his father in jealous rage. The prosecutor methodically destroys Dmitri's alibi about hiding money in a sewn bag, pointing out how liars trip themselves up on trivial details—like not remembering what fabric they used or where they got thread. He describes Dmitri's arrest with chilling accuracy: a desperate animal caught in a trap, blurting out incriminating phrases before scrambling for any defense. The prosecutor's masterstroke comes when he reveals how they used Grigory's testimony about the open door to shatter Dmitri's story completely. But the speech's most powerful moment isn't about evidence—it's when Kirillovitch transforms the trial into something larger, invoking Russia's reputation before other nations. He compares Russia to a runaway troika (three-horse carriage) racing toward destruction, watched by horrified European neighbors. The prosecutor warns that acquitting a father-killer will confirm the world's worst fears about Russian lawlessness and barbarism. This rhetorical flourish—mixing nationalism, shame, and fear—electrifies the courtroom. The audience buzzes with mixed reactions: some praise his psychological insights, others criticize his theatrical excess. All eyes now turn to defense attorney Fetyukovitch, who must somehow counter this devastating performance.
Coming Up in Chapter 89
The courtroom holds its breath as the renowned defense attorney Fetyukovitch rises to speak. Can he possibly counter the prosecutor's devastating case, or will his arguments cut both ways—helping and hurting his client simultaneously?
Share it with friends
An excerpt from the original text.(~500 words)
The Galloping Troika. The End Of The Prosecutor’s Speech. Ippolit Kirillovitch had chosen the historical method of exposition, beloved by all nervous orators, who find in its limitation a check on their own eager rhetoric. At this moment in his speech he went off into a dissertation on Grushenka’s “first lover,” and brought forward several interesting thoughts on this theme. “Karamazov, who had been frantically jealous of every one, collapsed, so to speak, and effaced himself at once before this first lover. What makes it all the more strange is that he seems to have hardly thought of this formidable rival. But he had looked upon him as a remote danger, and Karamazov always lives in the present. Possibly he regarded him as a fiction. But his wounded heart grasped instantly that the woman had been concealing this new rival and deceiving him, because he was anything but a fiction to her, because he was the one hope of her life. Grasping this instantly, he resigned himself. “Gentlemen of the jury, I cannot help dwelling on this unexpected trait in the prisoner’s character. He suddenly evinces an irresistible desire for justice, a respect for woman and a recognition of her right to love. And all this at the very moment when he had stained his hands with his father’s blood for her sake! It is true that the blood he had shed was already crying out for vengeance, for, after having ruined his soul and his life in this world, he was forced to ask himself at that same instant what he was and what he could be now to her, to that being, dearer to him than his own soul, in comparison with that former lover who had returned penitent, with new love, to the woman he had once betrayed, with honorable offers, with the promise of a reformed and happy life. And he, luckless man, what could he give her now, what could he offer her? “Karamazov felt all this, knew that all ways were barred to him by his crime and that he was a criminal under sentence, and not a man with life before him! This thought crushed him. And so he instantly flew to one frantic plan, which, to a man of Karamazov’s character, must have appeared the one inevitable way out of his terrible position. That way out was suicide. He ran for the pistols he had left in pledge with his friend Perhotin and on the way, as he ran, he pulled out of his pocket the money, for the sake of which he had stained his hands with his father’s gore. Oh, now he needed money more than ever. Karamazov would die, Karamazov would shoot himself and it should be remembered! To be sure, he was a poet and had burnt the candle at both ends all his life. ‘To her, to her! and there, oh, there I will give a feast to the whole world, such as never was before, that...
Master this chapter. Complete your experience
Purchase the complete book to access all chapters and support classic literature
As an Amazon Associate, we earn a small commission from qualifying purchases at no additional cost to you.
Available in paperback, hardcover, and e-book formats
Intelligence Amplifier™ Analysis
The Road of Weaponized Truth
Using selective facts and emotional manipulation to destroy rather than illuminate, turning someone's own words and actions into weapons against them.
Why This Matters
Connect literature to life
This chapter teaches how to recognize when someone uses selective facts to destroy rather than understand.
Practice This Today
This week, notice when someone presents 'evidence' about others—ask yourself: are they seeking solutions or building a case for predetermined conclusions?
Now let's explore the literary elements.
Terms to Know
Prosecutor's closing argument
The final speech where the prosecution summarizes their case and tries to convince the jury to convict. It's their last chance to shape how the jury sees all the evidence they've presented.
Modern Usage:
We see this in every courtroom drama on TV - the moment when the prosecutor pulls it all together to make their final pitch.
Troika
A traditional Russian carriage pulled by three horses running side by side. Dostoevsky uses it as a metaphor for Russia itself - powerful but potentially out of control, racing toward an unknown destination.
Modern Usage:
Like saying America is a runaway train - impressive but maybe heading for disaster if nobody grabs the wheel.
Psychological prosecution
A legal strategy that focuses on the defendant's mental state, motivations, and character rather than just physical evidence. The prosecutor tries to show why the person would commit the crime.
Modern Usage:
Modern prosecutors still do this - painting a picture of someone as 'the type of person' who would commit murder based on their behavior and psychology.
Alibi destruction
The systematic dismantling of a defendant's story about where they were when the crime happened. Prosecutors look for inconsistencies and impossible details to prove the person is lying.
Modern Usage:
Police and lawyers still catch people in lies by asking about small details - if you're making it up, you'll mess up the little stuff.
Nationalist rhetoric
Using appeals to national pride and shame to influence an audience. The prosecutor argues that acquitting Dmitri will make Russia look bad to other countries.
Modern Usage:
Politicians today still use 'What will other countries think of us?' to rally support or justify their positions.
Courtroom theater
The dramatic, performative aspect of trials where lawyers don't just present facts but put on a show to sway emotions. Legal arguments become entertainment and persuasion.
Modern Usage:
High-profile trials today are still theater - lawyers know they're performing for cameras and public opinion, not just the jury.
Characters in This Chapter
Ippolit Kirillovitch
Prosecutor
Delivers a masterful closing argument that systematically destroys Dmitri's defense. He combines legal precision with emotional manipulation, turning the trial into a referendum on Russian national character.
Modern Equivalent:
The ambitious district attorney who sees a high-profile case as their ticket to higher office
Dmitri Karamazov
Defendant
The target of the prosecutor's devastating speech. His past actions and contradictory statements are used to paint him as a jealous murderer who killed his father over money and a woman.
Modern Equivalent:
The guy whose messy personal life gets picked apart in court to make him look guilty
Grushenka
Catalyst figure
Though not present, she's central to the prosecutor's narrative as the woman whose returning lover triggered Dmitri's alleged murderous rage. Her choices drive the men's actions.
Modern Equivalent:
The woman at the center of a love triangle that ends in violence
Grigory
Key witness
His testimony about the open door becomes crucial evidence that the prosecutor uses to demolish Dmitri's alibi and prove he was at the scene of the crime.
Modern Equivalent:
The neighbor whose testimony places the suspect at the crime scene
Key Quotes & Analysis
"Karamazov always lives in the present"
Context: The prosecutor explaining why Dmitri didn't worry about Grushenka's first lover until he returned
This reveals how the prosecutor understands Dmitri's psychology - as someone who can't think ahead or learn from the past, making him dangerous and unpredictable. It's both an insight and an accusation.
In Today's Words:
He's the kind of guy who only deals with what's right in front of him
"He suddenly evinces an irresistible desire for justice, a respect for woman and a recognition of her right to love"
Context: Describing Dmitri's reaction when Grushenka's lover returned
The prosecutor uses this apparent nobility to make Dmitri's alleged murder even more shocking - if he could be so honorable about love, his patricide becomes more monstrous by contrast.
In Today's Words:
He actually showed some class about her choosing someone else
"The blood he had shed was already crying out for vengeance"
Context: Referring to the father's murder demanding justice
Biblical language that transforms the trial into a moral crusade. The prosecutor isn't just seeking conviction but positioning himself as an agent of divine justice.
In Today's Words:
This murder demands payback
"What will Europe say about us?"
Context: Warning that acquitting a father-killer will shame Russia internationally
The prosecutor transforms a local murder trial into a question of national honor, using shame and patriotism to pressure the jury beyond the actual evidence.
In Today's Words:
What will the rest of the world think if we let this slide?
Thematic Threads
Performance
In This Chapter
The prosecutor transforms legal argument into theatrical spectacle, using nationalism and shame to manipulate the audience
Development
Escalated from earlier courtroom drama—now pure performance art disguised as justice
In Your Life:
You see this when people turn personal conflicts into public performances, making you the villain in their story
Truth as Weapon
In This Chapter
Facts become ammunition—the prosecutor uses Dmitri's own contradictions and emotions to build an inescapable case
Development
Introduced here as the prosecution's core strategy
In Your Life:
You encounter this when someone uses your honest admissions or past mistakes against you in arguments
Collective Shame
In This Chapter
The prosecutor makes the trial about Russia's reputation, transforming individual judgment into national identity
Development
New escalation—personal guilt becomes cultural betrayal
In Your Life:
You feel this pressure when family or community makes your choices reflect on everyone's honor or reputation
Systematic Destruction
In This Chapter
The prosecutor methodically dismantles Dmitri's alibi piece by piece, using logic as a demolition tool
Development
Culmination of the prosecution's careful evidence gathering
In Your Life:
You experience this when someone systematically uses your own words and actions to prove you're untrustworthy or incompetent
You now have the context. Time to form your own thoughts.
Discussion Questions
- 1
How does the prosecutor use Dmitri's own words and actions against him, and what makes this strategy so effective?
analysis • surface - 2
Why does the prosecutor shift from discussing evidence to talking about Russia's reputation? What does this reveal about his true strategy?
analysis • medium - 3
Where have you seen someone use selective facts to make their case while ignoring important context? How did it feel to witness or experience this?
application • medium - 4
If you were Dmitri's defense attorney, how would you counter this devastating prosecution without seeming to dismiss legitimate concerns?
application • deep - 5
What does this chapter reveal about the difference between seeking truth and performing power? Why do people sometimes choose performance over genuine understanding?
reflection • deep
Critical Thinking Exercise
Spot the Truth Weapon
Think of a recent argument or conflict you witnessed (at work, in family, on social media, in news). Write down the facts each side presented, then identify which facts were highlighted versus which were ignored. Notice how the same situation can look completely different depending on which truths get emphasized.
Consider:
- •Look for emotional language mixed with factual claims - this often signals weaponized truth
- •Pay attention to when the argument shifts from specific issues to character attacks or bigger moral stakes
- •Notice if someone is trying to understand the other person or just win the argument
Journaling Prompt
Write about a time when someone used your own words or actions against you unfairly. How did you recognize what was happening, and how did you respond? What would you do differently now?
Coming Up Next...
Chapter 89: The Defense Begins Its Case
Moving forward, we'll examine skilled advocates can use the same evidence to tell completely different stories, and understand psychology in arguments can be a double-edged sword that cuts both ways. These insights bridge the gap between classic literature and modern experience.