American courtroom discourse

Since the twentieth century, information has become a particularly powerful tool of influence in all realms of human activities. The sender of the speech seeks to influence their recipients by all available means, both lingual and non-lingual. For this reason, we have placed special emphasis on psychological phenomena that help the speech author to succeed in court. One of such seminal psychological phenomena is transgression. Notwithstanding a thorough study of this issue, we have not come across any studies of courtroom discourse dealing with this phenomenon. While exploring the texts of the prosecutors` and defense attorneys` speeches we applied contextual and linguo-stylistic analyses as well as intent and discourse analysis methods.Based on such findings, transgression in courtroom discourse is used simultaneously to erase bounds, on the one hand, and to create hype and epatage, on the other. It is created with the help of lexical means mostly which can be either invective directly or become invective in the context.

ON THE LEGALITY OF A SEARCH AND / OR INSPECTION OF HOUSING OR OTHER PROPERTY OF A PERSON ON ORDER OF AN INVESTIGATOR, A DETECTIVE, A PROSECUTOR

The search and / or inspection of a person’s home or other property on behalf of an investigator, a detective, or a prosecutor is often challenged by defense attorneys, as in the process of these investigative (search) actions there are many cases of non-compliance with criminal procedural requirements. At the same time, even when these violations are in fact absent, the grounds for appeal are not exhausted, because in the CPC of Ukraine the formation of certain articles is such that a priori provides for different interpretations. Thus, today there is no agreed position among theorists, nor the unity of judicial practice concerning the search and / or inspection of housing or other property of a person on behalf of the investigator, a detective, a prosecutor. According to mentioned before situation, this publication attempts to refute the thesis that the search and / or inspection of housing or other property of a person is unacceptable on behalf of an investigator, a detective, a prosecutor. The author’s arguments concerning such a position that such investigative (search) actions as search and inspection of housing or other property of a person in criminal proceedings should be carried out not only by an investigator or a prosecutor but should be carried out within the meaning of Articles 40, 41, 234, 236, 237 of the CPC of Ukraine. It is proved that based on the existing case law and to providing its unity, it is urgent and necessary for the Supreme Court to develop in its own legal positions such approaches that would follow not from the interpretation of the content of the CPC rules provided by Chapter 20, but from legal expediency as well as the tactical need to entrust in certain cases the conduct of investigative (search) actions to employees of operating units, including the implementation of a search and inspection of housing or other property of a person. Own approaches to the acceptability of the position are formulated in the article, when the investigating judge, understanding the depth of the above issues, acting within the current CPC of Ukraine, performing criminal proceedings and exercising judicial control over the rights, freedoms and interests of persons in criminal proceedings (paragraph 18 Article 3 of CPC of Ukraine), in its own decision to conduct a search of housing or other property of a person or related investigative (search) activities indicates that it gives permission to conduct a search along with an investigator, a detective, a prosecutor and operatives responsible or other authorized person on behalf.

A Pragmatic Analysis of Questions and Responses in American Defense Attorneys' Cross-examinations

The structure of the interrogation process in cross-examinations is said to be diverse and complex in terms of question-response typology. This is because the counsel has to extract truth from an opposing party’s witness whose views are expected to advocate that party's views regarding the case. Accordingly, the study which is basically quantitative in nature aims to investigate what the examining party intends to obtain out of these questions and which of these questions are the most prevalently used. It also aims to measure the amount of cooperativity in witnesses' responses. Accordingly, three transcripts of cross-examination have been analyzed, using a pragmatically-oriented approach. The approach draws on Stenstorm (1984) and Archer's (2005) classification of questions; Stenstorm (1984) and Archer's (2002) classificatory scheme of responses which is based on the strategies of violating Grice's (1975) maxims to determine the degree of cooperation on the part of respondents. The analysis revealed a diversity in the attorneys' method, making the use of four types of leading questions as well as non-leading ones represented by WH questions. The latter recorded the least percentage in comparison with the overall percentage of leading questions. That is; a preference is shed on the part of cross-examining counsel towards leading over non-leading questions. Moreover, the majority of the responses given have indicated the witnesses' commitment to the purpose and format of the questions posed, showing a high level of cooperativity on the part of those witnesses

Sources & actors (Justice and Crime Coverage)

These variables are used to determine whose views and activities are covered in the reporting on justice. A distinction is made between the variable "actors", which is used to measure the description of acting persons, and the variable "source", that captures which persons have a direct or indirect quote. Field of application/theoretical foundation: The variable serves - among other variables – as an indicator of the representativeness of judicial reporting. Example studies: Haney & Greene (2004); Oehmer (work in progress) Information on Haney & Greene (2004) Authors: Craig Haney, Susan Greene Research interest: The study evaluates aspects of newspaper reporting about death penalty cases and capital defendants. Object of analysis: “representative sample of local, mainstream (i.e., non-“tabloid”) newspaper coverage” (134) Codebook: not available Information on Oehmer (work in progress) Research interest: The research interest of the study focuses on three sets of questions concerning 1) the selection and representativeness of court reporting, 2) the information function of court reporting and 3) the presentation of court reporting. Object of analysis: court coverage in Swiss newspapers (Tagesanzeiger, NZZ, Neue Luzerner Zeitung, Südostschweiz, Blick, Gratiszeitung, 20Minuten) Time frame of analysis: January 2007 – December 2017 Codebook: available (see attachment) Info about variables Author(s) Level of analysis Operationalization/coding instructions Values Intercoder reliability Haney & Greene (2004) article Sources “We coded source attributions for information contained in the articles. Specifically, we examined whether the prosecution, defense, judges, or law enforcement (e.g., police), or the suspect/defendant or laypersons purporting to be knowledgeable about him or his crime(s) were specifically quoted or cited. For example: After allegedly stealing Schockley’s 1990 Buick station wagon and items from Schockley’s Lodi home, Hensley went to the Oasis bar on the outskirts of Stockton and picked up a 32-year-old prostitute, police said. (“Killing Suspect Caught,” 1992)“ (136) - Police/law enforcement - Prosecutors - Judges - Defense attorneys - Defendants - Lay witnesses - Prosecution Defense Cronbach’s alpha of .73 across categories (5 Coder), not mentioned for individual category Oehmer (work in progress) Actors in most covered court case in article Actors of the trial Only actors of the (dominant) trial described in the article are coded - i.e. actors involved in other processes are not considered here. Only those actors are coded who are described as actively acting. Simple statements such as "the verdict of the court" or "in the motion of the lawyers can be read that" does not qualify as actors. Decisive for the assignment to an actor is the role in the respective process: If, for example, a police officer is accused of abuse of authority, he is coded as the accused, not as an actor of the police. - Opfer - Angehörige der Opfer - Angeklagte(r) - Angehörige des/r Angeklagten - Akteure der Staatsanwaltschaft - Anwälte/ Verteidiger - Richter/ Spruchkörper - Gericht allgemein - Akteure der Polizei - Zeugen - Gutachter - Sonstiges Holsti .84; Krippendorff’s Alpha: .83 (2 Coder) References Haney, C. & Greene, S. (2004). Capital constructions: Newspaper reporting in death penalty cases. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 4(1), 129–150. Oehmer, Franziska. Die dritte Gewalt in den Medien. Eine repräsentative quantitative Inhaltsanalyse der Gerichtsberichterstattung Schweizer Medien (work in progress). [Justice in the media. A representative quantitative content analysis of court reporting in the Swiss media].

Blaming Children: How Rape Myths Manifest in Defense Attorneys’ Questions to Children Testifying About Child Sexual Abuse

Since rape myths were codified in 1980 ( Burt, 1980 ), scholars have shown that individuals who endorse rape myths perceive victims as less credible and more responsible for rape and perpetrators as less responsible. Studies also show that rape myths hinder successful adjudication of rape cases by influencing juries’ assessments of perpetrator guilt ( Dinos et al., 2015 ). While most of this research focuses on sexual assaults involving adult victims, some scholars have found that victims as young as 12 are blamed for rape. If rape myths influence the perceptions of sex offenses even when victims are children, then defense attorneys in child sexual abuse (CSA) cases may be motivated to highlight rape myth in CSA trials. In the current study, we conducted a content analysis of the cross-examinations of 122 children, aged 6 to 17, alleging CSA to determine if and how defense attorneys question children about rape myths. We looked for questions about force and resistance, motives to lie, victim precipitation, and character issues (e.g., habitual drug use). We found that defense attorneys commonly referenced rape myths in CSA trials. A total of 10% of all defense attorneys’ lines of questioning referenced a rape myth, and attorneys asked 77% of children at least one rape myth line of questioning. Whether or not attorneys asked about different myths and the content of these questions varied by children’s age. Our findings indicate that defense attorneys use rape myths strategically to undermine children’s credibility in CSA trials, but they adapt (adult) rape myths in ways that are plausible in the CSA context. Policies formed to prevent the prejudicial impact of rape myths at sexual assault trials involving adults (e.g., rape shield laws) may not adequately prevent their impact in CSA trials. Prosecutors, therefore, should address rape myths at CSA trials.

Did Your Mom Help You Remember?: An Examination of Attorneys’ Subtle Questioning About Suggestive Influence to Children Testifying About Child Sexual Abuse

Researchers studying children’s reports of sexual abuse have focused on how questioners overtly assess coaching and truthfulness (e.g., “Did someone tell you what to say?”). Yet attorneys, and defense attorneys, in particular, may be motivated to ask about suggestive influence and truthfulness in subtle ways, such as with implied meaning (e.g., “Did your mom help you remember?”). Such questions may be particularly challenging for children, who may interpret statements literally, misunderstanding the suggested meaning. The purpose of this study was to examine and categorize how attorneys’ ask about suggestive influence and truthfulness. We wanted to learn how attorneys subtly accuse suggestive influence, and how frequently this occurred. We hypothesized that questions indirectly accusing suggestive influence would be common, and that defense attorneys would ask more subtle questions, and fewer overt questions, than prosecutors. We examined 7,103 lines of questioning asked by prosecutors and defense attorneys to 64 children testifying about alleged child sexual abuse. We found that 9% of all attorneys’ lines of questioning asked about suggestive influence or truthfulness. The majority (66%) of these were indirect accusations. Indirect accusations of suggestive influence spanned a range of subtleties and topics, including addressing conversational influences (e.g., coaching), incidental influences (e.g., witnessing abuse), and others. We also found defense attorneys were less likely than prosecutors to ask about suggestive influence and truthfulness overtly. We conclude that attorneys commonly ask about suggestive influence and truthfulness in subtle ways that developing children may struggle to understand, and which may result in affirmations of influence, even when allegations are true.

Courtroom Workgroups

“Courtroom workgroup” is a term used to describe the ongoing relationships between judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. These three interrelated relationships define how the central figures operate and indeed how a case progresses. The authors survey the existing literature on such workgroups and conduct twelve interviews with key stakeholders in the workgroup structure at both the state and federal levels. Such interviews allow the authors to compare the literature—often decades old—to the experiences of judges and attorneys in today’s courtrooms. The authors examine how the relationships in the three courtroom roles explain some case outcomes, but also examine the host of other variables which arguably sometimes individually, and more often collectively, contribute to a richer, more nuanced, and more comprehensive understanding of court outputs and outcomes, including the nature of workgroups themselves. The authors caution against “concept hagiography”—i.e. too enthusiastically touting the explanatory power of the concept being studied, while giving shorter shrift to underlying explanatory variables. Finally, note is taken of how the recent election of exceptionally progressive prosecutors in several major jurisdictions may lead to opportunities for quasi-experimental testing of how changes in workgroups affect case outcomes.