Figures of obscuring

While an argument can be made that any rhetorical figure is an obscuring of meaning, there are some figures which are explicitly intended to make understanding difficult or impossible. In a legal argument you are normally looking to emphasize or amplify those elements that confirm your case theory, and under-play the points that weaken your case. Figures of obscuring are techniques that may be used when you are seeking to minimise the effect of a particular fact or argument (without misleading the court). Not all of these may be used in a court setting - I wouldn't suggest you use riddles in court for example!

Enigma -Obscuring one's meaning by presenting it within a riddle or by means of metaphors that purposefully challenge the reader or hearer to understand.
Schematismus - Concealing a meaning by using figurative language, either out of necessity or for humor's sake.
Noema-an obscure and subtle speech.
Allegory- this is a sustained metaphor continued through whole sentences or even through a whole discourse. While not necessarily obscuring, it can be. A lot of Curran's speeches rely quite heavily on metaphor, so if you want to see this technique in action try looking there.
Skotison - involves purposeful obscurity.