Language in the courtroom

1. Comparative Legal Linguistics Languageinthecourtroom

2. Preview • Police station: Witnessandsuspectstatements (examples) • Interactioninthecourtroom: adversarial system • Questionsinthecourtroom: examination-in-chief, cross-examination • Languageandpowerinthecourtroom • Productionformatsinthecourtroom (Goffman)

3. Language in the courtroom: witness statements • Witnessstatementsandthosetakenfromsuspects – importantpiecesofevidence • During a trial,lawyersmayaskwitnessesaboutthedetailscontainedintheirstatementseither to introducethisinformationintocourtorchallengeitsveracity • Ifwhat a witnesssays at trialdifferstoomuchfromwhatisinthestatement, thewitnessmayappear to beunreliable

4. Witnessstatements • Manyjurisdictionsstipulatethatthewitnessstatementshouldbeinhisownwords • A commonwayoftakingstatementsisthroughquestionsandanswers

5. Example • P: (types) • Fame wasbeforethat. • P. Whydon’tyoufirsttell me about Fame then. • What uh happenedthere • Fame isintheKalverstraat, right? • S: Yes. • P. Quitenear Dam Square, right? • S: Yes. • P: (types) • Fame isintheKalverstraatin Amsterdam, quitenear Dam Square.

6. Comment • All thedetailsthatendupintypedlines are providedbythe police officer • As he hasaccess to informationaboutthe incident, thisisnotabouttheofficerfabricating a statement, ormakingupfacts • But thequestionremains: Isitpossible to saythatthestatementisinthewordsofthesuspect?

7. Acase • Thecaseinvolvedalcohol, arguingandeventually a death; specificmoments are revisited time andagaininthe police questioningofwitnesses; there are at least 4 versionsoftheevent • Whilethewitnessbeginsinversion one bytellingthe story, inversiontwothe police officerasksquestionsaboutdetailsofthe story • In version 3, detailswhichhavebeenadded are checked, beforethestatementistakendown to versionfour

8. Comparetheversionsofthe same event Version 3 (I=Interviewingofficer W=Witness; (.)=short pause (numbers)=period ofsilenceinseconds) • I: was he stillinthechair at this time? • W: (.) yeh. • I: yeh, (.) andyousay he wasproperdrunk? • W: yeh. • I: (.) OK (.) y-yousaid some wasit how long (.) beforethemanflipped? • W: sayaboutphhh (.) notquite sure becausetheywasquite – arguing for quite a long time. • I: (10.2) OK andsuddenlythemanflips?

9. Comparetheversionsofthe same event • Version 4 • I: OK (10.4) sowhenyousay he wa-he continued to argue a bit, isthatwhen he wasshouting (.) urm (.)youbastardsI’llknockyouout? • W: yeh. • I: (9.2) whowas he sayingthat to? • W: to Kegs. • I: (11.8) he saidthat to Kevin (2.9) thiswent on for how long? • W: aboutnotact-notactually sure how longitwent (.) on for. • I: how long do youthink? • W: sayabout (.) sayabout 10 minutes. • I: (4.2) thiswent on for about 10 minutes (.) suddenlythemanflip – flipped.

10. Finalstatement • I saiddon’t start arguingintheman’shouseandtheycalmeddown, themancontinued to argue a bit saying ‘youbastardsI’llknockyouout’ he wassayingthat to Kevin (surname) • Thiswent on for 10 minutes. Suddenlythemanflipped (Rock 2001: 64-5)

11. Activity • How manyofthewitness’swords are inthefinalstatement? • Isitenough to countthewords?

12. Comment • Theinterrogatorcollapseshisquestionsandthesuspect’sconfirmationsinto a writtentextthatcanlaterbeattributed to thesuspect • Thestatementserves a numberofpurposes

13. Witnessstatements • Theofficerconstructingthestatementistaking on differentroles: he orients to thepersonin front ofhim, putstogether a detailedandcoherentnarrativewhichcomplieswiththerulesofthestatementgenre, andthinksahead to thelegalconstructionandunderstandingofthestatementinaninvestigationandtrial • All theseobjectives – fusedinthefinalstatement

14. Example • P: Do yourealizethatitisforbiddenintheNetherlands to uh havecocaine on you, • Or to dealinit? • S: (nods) • P: (types, 24 seconds): I knowthatitisforbiddenintheNetherlands to possesscocaineor to dealinit.

15. „Sillyquestions”: Example • P: DidMelvingiveyoupermission to throwthehammer at his front door? (pause) • S: NO!!

16. Comment • ‘sillyquestions’: giventheimportanceofwrittentextsinthelaw, itisimportantthatthesedetails are included • Questionsoftenenumeratethe separate elementsofanoffence • Melvin – askedif he gavepermission for a hammer to bethrown at his front door • Thesequestionsensurethatthesuspect’s ‘intentionsandknowledge’ or ‘stateofmind’ withregard to theactionstheyhavecommitted are madeexplicit „for therecord”

17. Witnessstatements • Witnessstatements are highlyconstructedtexts • Thestatements are notalwaysinthewordsofthewitness • Thetexts are subsequentlytreated as reliable

18. Activity • Drawing on anyknowledgeyouhave, make a note ofalltheparticipantsyoucanthinkofin a courtroom • Thinkaboutwhatthey do • Thisshouldhelpyou to comeupwith some initialideasaboutwhatkindsofspeakingrulesapplyinthecourtroom.

19. Adversarial system (commonlaw) • Trialseen as a battlebetweenprosecutionanddefense • Evidencepresenteddirectlyduringthetrial; each side presentsitscase • Openingstatement for each side • Examination-in-chief (the side callingthewitnessconductstheexamination-in-chief, followedbycross-examination) • Cross-examinationofwitnesses • Thejudgeinstructsthejury on pointsoflaw • Jurypassestheverdict • Quantumofproofincriminalcases: beyondreasonabledoubt • Judgepassesthe sentence

20. Inquisitorial system (civil law) • Based on writtenevidencecollectedinadvance • Theinvestigating magistrate conductstheinvestigation: interviewswitnesses, takesstatements, workswiththe police

21. Conversationanalysis (CA) • CA looks at thedetailofconversationspayingattention to whatissaid, pauses, intonation, thesmallestdetailsof talk • Theutteranceofwordsby a speaker – a ‘turn’ • Thealterationofspeakers – ‘turn-taking’ • Thequestion/answersequence – ‘anadjacencypair’

22. Typesofquestions • Open questionsallowtheaddressee a dealoflatitudeintheiranswer (who, what, where, why) • Closedquestionsinvite a limitedrangeofresponses

23. Closedquestions • Yes/no questions; • Tagquestions • often: a ‘preferred’ and a ‘dispreferred’ response (e.g. ‘You’recoming, right’? has a preferredresponse ‘yes’) • Itis ‘easier’ to give a preferredresponse, andtheformofthequestionusuallyindicateswhatthepreferredresponseis • Closed questions in the courtroom – used not only in eliciting information, but also controlling the way this information is presented • Closedquestions – exert more controlover a witnessthanopenquestions

24. Activity: Considerthefollowingquestions. How controlling are they?Why?Doesitdepend on whoisasking? • 1. Whathappened on thatevening? • 2. Wherewereyoustandingthen? • 3. Wereyouangryorwereyoufurious? • 4. That’snotwhathappenedisit? • 5. You werenothappyaboutthesituation. Isthatnotthecase? • 6. You weren’tthere.

25. Questionsinthecourtroom • Information-seeking (open) • Confirmation-seeking (closed) • Bothtypescanbe more orlessconstraining, i.e. coercive (tags – lessconstrainingthandeclaratives

26. Comment • Information-seekingquestionscanbeveryopen (1) • Example (3) thewitnessisveryconstrained, invited to chosebetween 2 options; he candisputethequestion, but: 1) notrespondingdirectly to thetermsofthequestionmaybeseen as uncooperative; 2) inofferingonlytwoalternatives, thelawyerhas set a semanticminefield. Thewitnesswillprobablyhave to explicitlydenybeing ‘angry’ or ‘furious’ andthusthewordswillhave to beutteredagain (Cotterill 2004)

27. Questioningstrategies • Questioningstrategiesduringexamination-in-chiefandcross-examination are notstraightforward; itisnotthattheformerusesopenandthelatteronlyclosedquestions • Whileitispossible to look at individualquestions, anddescribethemintermsofbeinginformationorconfirmationseeking, orintermsofcontrolandcoercion, eachquestionandanswerpairispartof a broaderstructure

28. Questionsinthecourtroom • Understanding how questioningworksinthecourtroomrequiresthatattentionbegivennotjust to individualadjacencypairs, but also to the ‘line’ ofquestioning • Therulesofquestionandanswerinthecourtroommeanthatonlythebarristerscanindulgein ‘topic management’

29. Activity: Look at thefollowingexamination-in-chief for openandclosedquestions. Isthere a line ofquestioningoristheorderofquestionsnotimportant? • 1. Q. Right. Thatwasdealingwiththewaxinherears. Wasthereanyotherconversationbetweenthetwoofyou? • A. Yes. • 2. Q. Whattook place? • A. Sheproduced some paperorpapersoutofherbagandaskedif I wouldbekindenough to witnessher signature. • 3. Q. Andwhenyousaysheproduced a paperorpapersoutofherbagcanyourecallnowwhatsizethepaperorpaperswere? • A. Thepaperswerefoldedso I wouldhavethought A3 size.

30. Cont. • 4. Q. Andsheaskedifyouwould? • A. Witnessher signature. • 5. Q. Andwhatdidyousay? • A. I jokinglysaid to herthatifitwas a willandshewasgoing to leave me some money I couldn’t do it. • 6. Q. Andwhatwasherresponse to that? • A. Therewas a moment’s pause and I realisedthatitwassomethinglikethatand I said I wouldget a coupleofpatients to comeand do it.

31. Cont. • 7. MR JUSTICE FORBES: Sorry, I didn’tquitecatchthelastpartofthat, ‘Therewas a moment’s pause. I realiseditwassomethinglikethat?’ • A. And I said I wouldgettwopeopleoutofthe waiting room. • 8. MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Thankyou. (…) • 9. Q. When Mrs. Grundyeitherproducedthedocument, put it on the table, leftit on the table, wasthereever a time whenyoutouchedanysheetofpaperproducedby Mrs. Grundy on the 9th June? • A. Yes.

32. Cont. • 10. Q. When? • A. When Mrs. Grundytookthedocumentordocuments, and I reallycan’trememberiftherewas more than one pieceofpaper, as sheasked me and I wasrefusing I pushedthepaperback to her. So I sortofpushedmyfingeracrosslikethatandgaveitback to her. • 11. Q. Andthepartthatyouwerepushingback, wasthat a part on whichtherewasanywriting? Ifyoucannotrememberpleasedon’tspeculate. • A. I can’tremember.

33. Cont. • 12. Q. You havetoldusthat on thatoccasionyouplacedwasit one or more fingers on thedocument, Dr. Shipman? • A. At least one. • 13. Q. Wasthattheonlyoccasionuponwhichyoutouched a documentproducedby Mrs. Grundy on the 9th June? • A. No.

34. Cont. • 14. Q. Whatotheroccasionoroccasionsdidyoutouchanysuchdocumentproduced? • A. Afterthetwowitnesses had signed I pickedupthepaperor more than one pieceofpaperandhandeditback t Mrs. Grundy • (ShipmanArchive, 2005)

35. Comment: examination-in-chief • Thefirstquestionsseem to bedesigned to let Shipmantell a story: openquestions • Thesecondpart – more specific, dwelling on thehandlingofpaper • Thisanticipatesmaterial to becoveredinthecross-examination • Barristers are instructed to ‘insulate’ theirwitnessfromattackbytheoppositionincross-examination. Thatmaymeangettingthewitness to talk abouttopicsrelevant to youropponent’scase • Closedquestionsneed to beusedbecauseevidencehas to beintroducedintocourtandbecauseoftherulesofspeakinginthecourt; theonlywaythiscanbedoneisthrough a questionandanswerroutine

36. Thecounter argument: cross-examination • 1. Q. Mrs Grundywasasking for your signature? • A. Sheaskedif I wouldsignthedocument. • 2. Isn’tthatthe same thing? • A. I am tellingyouthatsheasked me to signthedocument. • 3. Q I said Mrs. Grundywasasking for your signature and I thinkyou are agreeingwith me? • A. Shewasasking me to signthedocument, shewasn’tspecificallyasking me for a signature whichshecould take away.

37. Cont. • 4. Q I see. Soyourresponse to thatwas, ‘No, I willgettwopatients.’ Whytwopatientsandnot one? • A. Becauseshe had asked. • 5. Q. No? • A. She had asked me to signitand I had surmisedthatitwas a willandtherefore I knewyouneedtwosignatures.

38. Cont. • 6. Q You wereveryveryquick on theuptake, weren’tyou, havingjustbeenasked for your signature, to decidequicklythatyouneededtwopeoplefromthesurgery, wereyounot? • A. I don’tthink I wasparticularlyquick on theuptake. Ifitwas a willitneededwitnessing-. • 7. Ofcourse? • A –itneededtwosignatures.

39. Cont. • 8. Q Ofcourse, ifyouwerethepersonwhopreparedthedocumentinthefirst place youwouldknowthatitwas a willandyouwouldknowthatyouneededtwopeople to sign a will, wouldn’tyou? • A. If I had doneallwhatyouhavetold me then I alreadywouldknowthatyouneedtwosignatures to witness a will. • 9. Q Nowyousaythat Mrs HutchinsonandMr Spencer signedthedocumentthatwasthereseenfirstbyyouin Mrs. Grundy’shand? • A. Theysigned a documentwhichmaywellhavebeenthedocumentthat I sawin Mrs Grundy’shand.

40. Cont. • 10. Q Andyourexplanation for yourlittlefingerprintbeinginthebottomlefthandcornerofthisdocumentisthatyou at some stagepushedthedocumentacrossthe desk andthatexplainsyourlittlefinger on the face ofthedocument? • A. Thatisprobablytherightconclusion to draw. • 11. Q Itcannotconceivablyberight, canit? • A (No reply)

41. Cont. • 12. Q Thedocumentthatyouhavetherethatbearsyourfinger-print wasnotthedocumentsignedby Mr. Spencer and Mrs. Hutchinson, wasit? • A. I am toldbythe Court thatthatisso. • 13. Q. Andsoyourfingerprintcouldnothavegot on thatpieceofpaperinthewitnessboxwithyounow on thatoccasion, couldit? • A. Yes. • Q. How? • A. I didsaythatsheproduced a document. I wasnotinthe room allthe time withher. And I don’tknowwhethertherewas one pieceofpaperortwopiecesofpaper.

42. Cont. • 15. Q. Yes. I am going to have to askyou to lookandseewhatyoutoldthe police. You are suggesting, are you, theremayhavebeen more than one pieceofpaperin Mrs. Grundy’spossessionthereandthen? • A. I am saying I do notknowiftherewas more than one pieceofpaper. • 16. Q. I am sorry, yougaveevidenceaboutthismatterearlier? • A. I willacceptthenthat I suggestedtherewas more than one pieceofpaperin Mrs. Grundy’spossession.

43. Cont. • 17. Q. You havealreadysaid Mrs. Grundy had more than one pieceofpaperinherpossessionwhenyougaveevidence? • A. Thankyou for reminding me. • Q. I am going to remindyounowofwhatyousaid to the police. Page 96 ofthe interview? • A. Thankyou. I haveit.

44. Cont. • 198. Q. Thankyou. Yourreply, ‘Mr. Spencer, and I askediftheywouldwitness a signature andtheycameinandwitnessedher signature. Mrs. Grundy had usedmypen, somethingthat I am nothappyaboutpeopledoing. I am sure ifyouhave a favouritepenyouknowthatyoudon’t let otherpeople use it, and I gavebiros to theothertwopeopleandtheywitnessedher signature. Theywentoutand I introduced, I said, ‘Thisis Mrs. Grundy”. Theywentout. Wefinishedtheconsultation. Shetookthepieceofpaperthat had beensigned, put itinherbagandwentout. I wasnotallowed to seewhatwaswritten on thepaper’. Doesthatanswerthequestion? Thereyourefer to thepieceofpaper, don’tyou? • A. I actuallyusedthosewords?

45. Cont. • 20. Q Yes, anditwas a ‘pieceofpaper’ wasitnot? • A. At alltimes I don’tknow. • (ShipmanArchive, 2005)

46. Activity: • Are thequestionsaskedinthecross-examinationthe same as intheexamination-in-chief? • Doesthecontentoftheexamination-in-chief make more sensenowthatthecross-examinationcanbeseen?

47. Comment • Thefunctionofthecross-examination: to identifyandthenchallengeinconsistenciesinthewitnesses’sevidence • ThebarristerchallengesShipman’sprevioustestimonyinitsowntermsandinrelation to his police interview • Theprosecutionseeks to questiontheplausibilityofthenarrative as well as to offeran alternative one, i.e. thatShipmanpreparedthewillandsoknewexactlywhatthedocumentwas

48. Comment: differencesregardingexamination-in-chief • 1) themarked use ofcommentary (6); questiontags • 2) silence • Twogoldenrulesofcross-examination: • 1. Tell: don’task! Includetheansweryouwantinthequestion • 2. Lead, lead, lead – avoidopenendedquestionswhereverandwheneverpossible. (McPeake, 2010: 167)

49. Activity • Isthereanyresponsethatcouldhavebeengiven to ‘question’ 11? • Thinkaboutwhatsomeonemightsayin a ‘normal’ conversationifchallengedinthisway. • Whatistheeffectofthesilenceinthis instance? • Whatmightthejury make ofthis? • Who isresponsible for thesilence?

50. Comment • According to therulesofthecourtroom, Shipmanisnotsupposed to askquestions, he canonly provide answers • Barristerasks a rhetoricalquestionwhichdoesnot ‘expect’ ananswer; itoftendoesnothaveananswer; hereitserves to comment on thewitness’stestimonyand to construct a silence; only a lawyercanconstructandexploitsilenceinthisway