Closing arguments in Dutch trials are representative of the adversarial part of the Dutch criminal justice system. The prosecutor and the defense lawyer design these arguments to persuade the judges of their opposing versions of the criminal events. Both parties draw on written documents such as the police record and on the interrogations during trial to present their perspectives on the case. References to these prior statements often take the form of reported speech. Prosecutors and defense lawyers subtly frame and change these statements. In this article I draw on insights from conversation analysis and discursive psychology to explore the way direct quotations are used to present a point of view. Most importantly, I will demonstrate how direct quotations are framed and embedded in a three-step rhetorical structure by prosecutors and defense lawyers.