Just a quick foreword: Here lies my essay. The
data i've used to write this is at the end of the essay, and the
references for the data are seperate from the main list of references.
The main piece of data is titled Trancript one, and transcripts 2-5 are
just there as examples of points i make throughout the essay to help
clarify what i'm talking about. If anyone happens to stumble across this
whilst writing a similar essay then i suppose you can reference this if
you want to, though i've no idea why you'd want to do that. Also, the
introduction and conclusion are really dodgy, so please don't use them
as any kind of guage for the quality of the actual essay :) Prepare
yourself.... aaaaaaaand go!
Analysis of typical courtroom interactions presents many
interesting examples of everyday sociological theories, as well as examples of
how power relationships are constructed and maintained within these
interactions. The main piece of naturally occurring data analysed in this essay
is a short extract from a courtroom transcript in which the Lawyer for the
defendant cross-examines the Plaintiff (a rape-victim). I will be analysing the
linguistic features in this transcript such as length of turns, question-answer
pairs, the type of questions asked and the types of responses given with
particular focus as to how these elements of the discourse contribute to power
relationships within the courtroom. Additional extracts of courtroom
transcripts will also be referred to in order to give examples of typical
courtroom interactions not present in the main extract. Alongside the extracts
this essay will also analyse the circumstances in which the transcript would
have occurred, such as the physical layout of the courtroom, the appearance and
positioning of the active participants within the courtroom, courtroom rules of
conduct and the use of courtroom space as
a front and back stage area.
The transcript is made up of a more or less equal number
of questions and statements. All of the
questions asked in this transcript are asked by the Lawyer, with the Witness
only contributing statements to the interaction. This displays the authority
the Lawyer has over the Witness, as the Lawyer has the right to ask questions,
whilst the Witness is compelled to answer them, yet cannot ask any of her own (Luchjenbroers 1991, p7). It
also shows that the Witness is willing to cooperate and follow the courts code
of conduct by only answering questions and not trying to challenge them or ask
any of her own.
All the questions asked by the Lawyer in this interaction
are Yes or No questions. This further establishes the Lawyers authority as it
restricts the responses given by the Witness, allowing her to only give short
replies, most of which consist of either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, as opposed to a more
lengthy explanatory answer which would be appropriate in response to a ‘Wh’
question, such as “What happened?” or “Why did you do that?”. This type of
questioning allows the Lawyer to control the direction the examination takes, what
information is likely to be brought up and what will be avoided or glossed over
(Luchjenbroers 1991, p7) and
to a certain extend enables the Lawyer to coerce and “manipulate” the evidence
presented through what Eades refers to as an “asymmetrical discourse structure”
(2012, p471) (Levinson 1979, p383). Out of 12 responses from the
Witness, 10 were either Yes or No answers (or yes/no followed by repetition of
the Lawyers questions, such as in turns 29 and 10). The other responses were
clarifying either what kind of make up or coat the Witness was wearing, and
were mentioned as additional information to a yes/no question asked by the
Lawyer. In these cases the Witness was not asked directly to go into as much
detail as she did, however she still offered information that was very relevant
to the question. The responses of the Witness in this transcript are
appropriate answers to the Lawyers questions, and as such show that she
acknowledges and respects the Lawyers authority and is willing to comply.
The length of turns taken by participants in courtroom
interactants contributes significantly to the power hierarchy within the
setting. Both the Judge and Lawyers make very lengthy speeches at the beginning
and end of a trial, which displays their higher authority in the courtroom over
the witnesses and jurors (Lloyd Long
Court Case part 1 2001) (Lloyd Long
Court Case part 7 2001). Comparatively jurors very rarely speak within
court, and witnesses generally only take short turns when speaking, and only in
response to a question asked of them, demonstrating their lower authority in
court. In these speeches the Lawyers make summaries of their arguments and the
evidence they will use, and the Judge explains to the jurors their responsibilities
and duties, the rules they must follow in carrying out these, and what to base
their ultimate decision on. Although the lengths of their speeches are similar,
the Judge displays higher authority than the Lawyers through the content of
his/her speeches. The Judge has the power to instruct the jury and tell them
what to do as well as the power to officially open and close the trial and
declare when breaks are to be taken, whereas the Lawyers have no power to
instruct other members of court or decide when it is appropriate to take a
break.
There is an unwritten set of asymmetrical, ceremonial
rules in force within a courtroom which interactants must follow if they are to
avoid any negative sanctions (Goffman 1967, p52-3). Different rules or parts of
the code of conduct relate to different interactants and the roles they are
playing, for example legal representatives have rules imposed over the types of
questions they are permitted to ask, whilst witnesses generally cannot ask any
questions with the exception of clarifying questions asked of them. Negative
sanctions can range from a verbal warning to exclusion from court for witnesses
and harsher sentences for defendants who have been found guilty. The Witnesses
Code of Conduct, as outlined by Penman (Luchjenbroers 1991, p5), states that a Witness must be
cooperative and answer all questions asked of them with the precise information
required. The transcript demonstrates the Witness complying with these rules by
not asking any questions of her own, and replying to the majority of the
Lawyers questions cooperatively with Yes/No answers. It is important for
defendants in particular to comply with the courtroom code of conduct, as if
they are seen to freely break the code of conduct within court then the jury
will be much more likely to assume that the defendant is also likely to break
the codes of conduct in place outside of court such as laws and ethical codes
(Goffman 1967, p55).
These rules are not finite and rigid, but do have some
degree of flexibility to them. This flexibility is demonstrated in turns 11-12
and 19-20 of the transcript, where the information given by the Witness exceeds
the information requested by the Barrister, yet is still very relevant and as
such is accepted by the Lawyer as an appropriate response. As these rules are
implicit and unwritten, some leniency is given in enforcing them, particularly
the rules relating to length of reply and relevancy of answer. Such leniency is
demonstrated in transcripts two and three (both from the same witness
examination). In transcript two the defendant goes into considerable detail
describing his background and schooling history; he is directly obeying the
barrister, yet is breaching the code by going into too much detail. The
Barrister tolerates this for some time as the defendant is likely unfamiliar
with what is expected of him, but ultimately reacts by politely cutting him
off. However when the defendant answers in a similar fashion several minutes
later in transcript three, the Barrister is quicker to cut him off, and does so
in a less polite manner, suggesting that the Barrister expects the defendant to
have learnt to answer questions more directly and with more relevance. Such
leniency appears to only apply to participants deemed to be inexperienced with
the courts code of conduct, as is demonstrated in transcript four, where a
Barrister is reprimanded by the Judge for being indirect and irrelevant when
answering a question.
Penman’s code does not apply to all witnesses, as can be
seen in transcript five which is an excerpt from an examination of an Internal
Revenue Service worker by a Barrister in a tax evasion case. When examining
this witness the Barrister asks ‘Wh’ questions as well as Yes/No questions, and
the witness is expected to answer these questions with much lengthier responses
than many other witnesses would be. In this case the Witness is highly
experienced in a particular field relevant to the case, and so is seen as an
‘expert witness’, and is treated with the same degree of authority as, for
example, a forensic pathologist or criminal psychologist, which is much higher
than the authority held by a regular witness.
Presentation of self is an extremely important aspect of
courtroom interactions. Everyone in the courtroom is playing a certain role;
judge, jury member, lawyer, bailiff, witness, member of the press, defendant,
etc. Not every individual will hold this role every time they enter this
particular setting, so physical presentation allows interactants to convey
which role they are playing in a given context (Luchjenbroers 1991, p6) both for their own
benefit and the benefit of other interactants (Goffman 1971, p28).
Judges and Barristers at certain levels of court wear a black gown, white
collar, and white curly wig. This distinguishes them from others present in the
court room and makes their higher status clear to observers. Police and
Bailiffs present in the court room will also wear uniforms, demonstrating their
level of authority and roles within the court.
Other active court participants, such as witnesses, defendants and
plaintiffs, will often wear some form of suit, whilst less active participants,
such as those in the Jury and the public gallery will typically be more
casually dressed. Presentation is particularly important for witnesses and
defendants in the courtroom. Those who are well presented will be perceived by
the jurors as more credible and trustworthy (Floy Sharp 1982, p101), and are
more likely to be perceived as a “person of certain desirable… qualities”
(Goffman 1967, p77).
The courtroom can be seen as a stage for Barristers and
Witnesses to act out their roles for the Jury, who play the part of the
audience in this setting. In a trial the Jury arrive knowing nothing, or at
least very little, about the case presented and the defendant being tried (Luchjenbroers 1991, p4). It
is up to the Barristers, with the aid of the Witnesses, to construct the facts
of the case along with any necessary background knowledge for the Jury (Lakoff,
cited in Luchjenbroers 1991,
p4), using the courtroom as a stage and the ‘props’ of evidence to help
them. The fact that courtroom proceedings and examinations occur for the
benefit of the Jury is apparent in the transcript, as the Barrister is asking
the Witness many questions that they already know the answer to. If we see such
examinations as part of an ‘onstage’ act then it becomes clear that the
Barrister is asking these questions for the benefit of the audience/ Jury. This
also accounts for the explicitness and repetitiveness of Witness examinations,
as can be seen in turns 9-12, and 17-24 of the transcript (Lakoff, cited in Luchjenbroers 1991, p4). This
ensures that the jury has understood the Barristers message, and is in
possession of all the necessary facts so they can come to an accurate verdict.
The courtroom only represents a front stage when all participants are present.
(Raskoff 2009) If the Jury, Barristers or Judge are not present then the
courtroom becomes a public semi-back stage area for the other participants left
in the room. These participants can then take on a slightly more relaxed and
informal demeanor until the absent participants return, however even in these
scenarios the front-stage performances are not dropped entirely (Raskoff 2009).
In contrast to this, the true backstage that the Jury cannot see would be the
interviews, discussions and deliberations that go on between Barristers,
Witnesses and authorities before the case appears in court in preparation for
the ‘onstage’ performances.
The physical courtroom setting is an extremely important
part of courtroom interaction. If a person was simply placed in the courtroom,
with no knowledge of where they were or why they were there, the appearance and
layout of the room would allow them to determine where they were and what is
likely to happen in that space based on their prior experience of a courtroom
or expectations of a courtroom created by film and media they may have seen, as
outlined in the ‘Documentary of Interpretation’ theory (Garfinkel 1972, p282-3).
The layout of the courtroom itself and the furniture and props within it also
contribute significantly to the power distance between interactants within the
courtroom setting (Carlen 1972,
p333). The judge is seated higher than any other individual on the court
floor, representing their position at the top of the power hierarchy in the
room and allowing them to command the attention of all others if required (Luchjenbroers 1991, p6).
Similarly, the Barristers bar is slightly raised, and barristers and Lawyers
are required to stand to speak or question a witness. All the furniture in the
courtroom is laid out so its occupants are focused on the witness box, which is
placed lower down than other items of furniture, allowing all interactants a
clear focus on the witness whilst simultaneously looking down upon them. This
serves to some extent to intimidate the Witness, making sure they know their
place at the bottom of the courtroom power hierarchy and comply with the will
and codes of the court.
This analysis demonstrates how aspects of everyday
sociology are utilised within the courtroom and also how these aspects help
contribute to courtroom power hierarchies. Linguistic elements found in the
main extract such as question-answer pairs, length of turns and turn patterning
help the Barrister express their authority over the Witness and high power
position within the courtroom. Presentation of self also helps Judges and
Barristers demonstrate their authority, while the layout of the courtroom
emphasizes the relatively powerless position of the Witnesses. Courtroom codes
of conduct ensure that the court proceeds smoothly whilst also reinforcing the
power relationships of the courtroom, dictating that witnesses must answer to
Lawyers but cannot question them, and all members of court must answer to and
obey the Judge. The front stage/back stage analogy demonstrates how courtroom
proceedings resemble a kind of act or play (with Judge, Barristers and
Witnesses acting for a Jury), and also to an extent demonstrates the power
relations between courtroom participants through how the courtroom becomes a
back stage when high-power participants, such as the Judge or Barristers,
leave.
References:
Carlen, P 1972, ‘The staging of
magistrates’ justice’ , in JG Manis and BN Meltzher (eds.) Symbolic Interaction: a reader in social psychology, Third edition,
Allyn and Bacon Inc., pp. 331-7
Eades, D 2012, ‘The social
consequences of language ideologies in courtroom cross-examination’ Language in Society, vol. 41, no, 4, pp.
471-497
Floy Sharp, S 1982, ‘Courtroom
interaction: an analysis of label-application and label-rejection’, MA thesis, Texas Tech
University
Garfinkel, H 1972, ‘Common sense
knowledge of social structures: the documentary method of interpretation’, in
JG Manis and BN Meltzher (eds.) Symbolic
Interaction: a reader in social psychology, Third edition, Allyn and Bacon
Inc., pp281-95
Goffman, E 1967, ‘The nature of
deference and demeanor’ in Interaction
Ritual, Pantheon books, New York,
pp. 47-96
Goffman, E 1971, ‘Performances’ in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Harmondsworth, Penguin,
pp. 28-82
Lloyd Long Court Case Transcript
(part 2) 2001, viewed 26 September 2012
<http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/LloydLong2.htm>
Lloyd Long Court Case Transcript
(part 1) 2001, viewed 29 October 2012
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/LloydLong7.htm
Luchjenbroers, J 1991, ‘Discourse Dynamics in the Courtroom: Some
methodological points of description’, La Trobe working papers in
linguisitcs, vol. 4
Raskoff, S April 2009 ‘Courtroom
dramaturgy’ posted on Everyday Sociology
Blog accessed 21/10/2012 http://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2009/08/courtroom-dramaturgy.html?cid=6a00d83534ac5b69e20120a55b109d970c
Transcript One
|
Turn
|
Speaker
|
Text
|
|
1
|
Lawyer
|
Your aim that evening was to go
to the discotheque?
|
|
2
|
Witness
|
Yes
|
|
3
|
Lawyer
|
Presumably you have dressed up
for that, had you?
|
|
4
|
Witness
|
Yes
|
|
5
|
Lawyer
|
And you were wearing makeup?
|
|
6
|
Witness
|
Yes
|
|
7
|
Lawyer
|
Eye-shadow?
|
|
8
|
Witness
|
Yes
|
|
9
|
Lawyer
|
Lipstick?
|
|
10
|
Witness
|
No I was not wearing lipstick.
|
|
11
|
Lawyer
|
You weren’t wearing lipstick?
|
|
12
|
Witness
|
Just eye-shadow, eye makeup.
|
|
13
|
Lawyer
|
And powder presumably?
|
|
14
|
Witness
|
Foundation cream, yes.
|
|
15
|
Lawyer
|
You had had bronchitis had you
not?
|
|
16
|
Witness
|
Yes
|
|
17
|
Lawyer
|
You have mentioned in the course
of your evidence about wearing a coat?
|
|
18
|
Witness
|
Yes
|
|
19
|
Lawyer
|
It was not really a at all coat,
was it?
|
|
20
|
Witness
|
Well it is sort of a coat dress
|
|
21
|
|
And I bought with trousers, as a
trouser suit
|
|
22
|
Lawyer
|
That is it down there isn’t it,
the red one?
|
|
23
|
Witness
|
Yes
|
|
24
|
Lawyer
|
If we call that a dress, if we
call that a dress
|
|
25
|
|
You had no coat on at all, had
you?
|
|
26
|
Witness
|
No
|
|
27
|
Lawyer
|
And this is January;
|
|
28
|
|
it was quite a cold night?
|
|
29
|
Witness
|
Yes it was cold actually.
|
Transcript Two
|
Barrister
|
Can you tell the jury about when you were born,
where, what type of schooling you've had, elementary and high school?
|
|
Defendant
|
Sure. Like I say, I'm Lloyd Long.
I was born in Winchester, Tennessee,
which is west of here, just across Monteagle
Mountain. I grew up in
a little community, little farming community called Alto, went to a little
three-teacher elementary school where our principal had -- we knew what the
golden rule was, but; he had one other rule. He said, "Just do
right." That was his rule. So, went on from there to Franklin County
High School, where I
majored in agriculture. I met my wife in high school. We graduated. As I
recall, we were king and queen of the Harvest Festival. That was fun, you
know. We went on from there to --
|
|
Barrister
|
Can I stop you right there? When did you
graduate?
|
Lloyd Long Court Case Transcript (part 2) 2001,
viewed 24 October 2012 <http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/LloydLong2.htm>
Transcript Three
|
Defendant
|
Yes, sir. It was kind of one of
those things. We put our house up for sale. We made the decision thinking we
had plenty of time; we drove the sign up in the yard and the house sold in
four days. So, we had to make like a mass exodus to get home. And my mom --
|
|
Barrister
|
What did you do after that?
|
Lloyd Long Court Case Transcript (part 3) 2001,
viewed 24 October 2012
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/LloydLong3.htm
Transcript Four
|
Judge
|
You haven't answered my question.
What's the 1979 CRS report?
|
|
Barrister
|
I'll show the Court here. And I
haven't had the opportunity, I was going to, during a break, put exhibit
stickers on them. But I've got everything divided up into files.
|
Transcript Five
|
Barrister
|
And how long have you been so employed?
|
|
Witness
|
I've been a revenue agent for about three years.
|
|
Barrister
|
And could you give the members of the jury some
idea of your educational background that you achieved before you were employed
by the Internal Revenue Service?
|
|
Witness
|
I have a bachelor's degree in economics from the College of William and Mary.
|
|
Barrister
|
Now, once you were employed by the Internal
Revenue Service, did you receive any training to assist you in your duties?
|
|
Witness
|
Yes, I did. I started out as a tax auditor. I was
a tax auditor for eleven years. During the course of my employment with
Internal Revenue Service, I've received diversity facility training, I've had
advanced corporation training, I've had expert witness training, quality
process improvement training.
|
|
Barrister
|
Now, during the course of your
employment with the Internal Revenue Service, have you been required to learn
what the filing requirements are for various individuals?
|
|
Witness
|
Yes, I have.
|
|
Barrister
|
Why is that? Why do you need to know that?
|
|
Witness
|
We need to know what the filing
requirements are in order to determine, number one, whether we should request
a tax return from someone who has not filed. Also, when we publicize during
filing season, we need to be able to tell people who needs to worry about
filing a tax return and who doesn't
|
|
Barrister
|
Do the filing requirements change from year to
year?
|
|
Witness
|
Yes, they do.
|
|
Barrister
|
Now, have you prepared some
charts to assist the jury with your testimony regarding the filing
requirements for 1989 and 1990?
|
|
Witness
|
Yes, I have.
|
|
Barrister
|
I'd like to show those to you.
They're Exhibit S-7.
|
Lloyd Long Court Case Transcript (part 2) 2001,
viewed 26 September 2012 <http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/LloydLong2.htm>
No comments:
Post a Comment