1 / 64

Language in the courtroom

Comparative Legal Linguistics. Language in the courtroom. Language in the courtroom : witness statements. Witness statements and those taken from suspects – important pieces of evidence

pelfrey
Download Presentation

Language in the courtroom

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparative Legal Linguistics Languageinthecourtroom

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

  3. Witnessstatements • Manyjurisdictionsstipulatethatthewitnessstatementshouldbeinhisownwords • A commonwayoftakingstatementsisthroughquestionsandanswers

  4. 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.

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

  6. Thecase • 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

  7. Comparetheversionsofthe same event • Version 3 • 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?

  8. 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: aboutnotactsh-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.

  9. 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)

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

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

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

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

  14. Example • P: DidMelvingiveyoupermission to throwthehammer at his front door? (pause) • S: NO!!

  15. 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”

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

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

  18. 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

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

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

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

  22. 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

  23. 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.

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

  25. 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)

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

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

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

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

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

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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)

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. 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?

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

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

  46. 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

  47. 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)

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

  49. 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

  50. Comment • Thelastfewlinesofthecross-examinationseek to contestthatwhichwasraisedintheexamination-in-chief: whethertherewas one pieceofpaperor more • Shipmanrepeatedlysays he doesnotknow how manypiecesofpapertherewere • Oncethishasbeenfirmlyestablished, thebarristermoves to thestatementShipmangave to the police • Thejuryis to understandthis line ofquestioning as a demonstrationofShipman’sdishonesty

More Related