Seeking or controlling the truth? An examination of courtroom questioning practices by Canadian lawyers*

ABSTRACT

The questioning practices of Canadian lawyers were examined. Courtroom examinations (N?=?91) were coded for the type of utterance, the assumed purpose of the utterance, and the length of utterance. Results showed that approximately one-fifth of all utterances were classified as productive for gathering reliable information (i.e. open-ended, probing); less than one percent of all utterances were open-ended. Direct examinations contained more closed yes/no, probing, and open-ended questions. Cross-examinations contained more leading and clarification questions, and opinions. Moreover, cross- (vs. direct) examinations contained more questions with a ‘challenging the witness’ purpose. The longest utterances were opinions, followed by multiple and forced-choice questions. The longest answers were in response to open-ended questions, followed by multiple and probing questions. Implications for the truth-seeking function of the judiciary are discussed.     

Deconstructing competing courtroom narratives: representation of social actors

Underpinned by the assumption that the import of the facts and the law in the courtroom depends on how they are invoked and (re)presented mainly through language use by courtroom interactants, this functional linguistic study critically scrutinizes representation strategies that opposing lawyers use to position social actors in their narratives, integrating Halliday’s concept of transitivity and van Leeuwen’s inventory of social actor representation. The findings reveal that the two sides consistently exhibit contrasting discursive practices, and that referential choices and grammatical positioning constitute major semiotic resources that work in concert to construct different identities and alternate realities, and negotiate interpretations of the guilt and innocence of the defendant and the victims. Social actor representation, it is argued, constitutes an important contingency bearing on the outcome of this institutional discourse. Such resources are deeply intertwined with each presenter’s underlying ideologies in this institutional discourse.     

Use of voices in legal opening statements

A powerful determinant of the outcome of a trial, the opening statement is the first opportunity for lawyers from each side to construct a factual narrative of events that makes sense and sounds plausible to the jury. Although it is created entirely by a lawyer and delivered in monologic speech, the genre shows traces of other voices. Regarding voice as a semiotic resource that allows reanimators to incorporate multiple perspectives, the study explores lawyers’ strategic orchestration of various voices in this initial phase of a trial, focusing on the source, function, and frequency of such voices. Based on a high-profile case, the findings suggest that the opening statement is a highly heteroglossic genre, and the two sides differ in terms of whose voices they choose to reanimate and what purposes those voices may be used to serve, including verbal–action representation, (re)contextualization, legitimation, and deconstruction. These voices not only serve to create and negotiate different realities but also contribute to making the opening statement essentially argumentative, rather than merely factual.     

Secondary Traumatic Stress in the Courtroom: Suggestions for Preventing Vicarious Trauma Resulting from Child Sexual Abuse Imagery

The internet and social media have added to an increase in sexual imagery. As a result, law enforcement, judicial officers and court ordered counselors will be exposed to an increase of images. While not every individual will experience post‐traumatic stress symptoms, it is anticipated there is risk for impact. The impact of viewing images can include an increase in vicarious trauma symptoms, burnout, and a possible decrease in impartiality. This paper offers suggestions for self‐care in the services of preventing collateral damage.