The Microformation of Criminal Defense: On the Lawyer's Notes, Speech Production,and a Field of Presence

Scheffer, Thomas

doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3903_5

Cited by 36 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Legal professionals commonly rely on indirect and sophisticated strategies, generating implicit pragmatic meaning (such as repetition in questioning, and use of narratives or reported speech) to construct and support their claims (Gibbons 2003;Maley & Fahey 1991). In the extensive literature on intertexuality in the courtroom (Cotterill 2002;Holt & Johnson 2010;Matoesian 1999;Scheffer 2006), reliance on pragmatic mechanisms such as the use of reported speech is considered a core ingredient of the "institutional literacy" shared by representatives of the legal profession. The defendant in our case, however, does not seem institutionally literate enough to infer the pragmatic meaning behind the judge's indirect request.…”

Section: Direct Reported Speechmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orality and authenticity in an interpreter-mediated defendant’s examination

Gallez

Maryns

2014

INTP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This case study examines how a court's perception of the defendant's socio-legal identity may be affected by interpreting. Since this perception relies largely on language, interpreters are expected to minimise their impact on the dynamics of direct communication between primary participants. The analysis focuses on an interpreter-mediated defendant's examination, recorded in an attempted murder case tried before the Belgian Assize Court, identifying possible departures from the principles of orality and authenticity. The recordings include exchanges, not necessarily audible to the court, between the defendant and the interpreter. Our analysis shows that: (a) the participation framework (directness) of the defendant's input is altered, while the relative inaudibility of the interaction between defendant and interpreter deprives the jury of access to authentic features of the defendant's delivery; (b) the interpreter's intervention may shift the defendant's oral exposition into a different style, and hence condition the way the defendant is eventually perceived by the jury.

show abstract

Section: Direct Reported Speechmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orality and authenticity in an interpreter-mediated defendant’s examination

Gallez

Maryns

2014

INTP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rock 2007;Ainsworth 2008), police interviews (e.g. Ainsworth 1993;Haworth 2006;Komter 2006;Johnson 2008;Jones 2008;Leo 2008) and coerced and false confessions (Drizin and Leo 2004;Berk-Seligson 2009), lawyer consultations (Scheffer 2006), asylum interviewing (Maryns 2004), mediation (Stewart andMaxwell 2010), civil, criminal andhistorical trials (e.g. Ehrlich 2001;Matoesian 2001;Cotterill 2003;Archer 2005;Heffer 2005;Shuy 2006Shuy , 2008 and appeals (Tracy 2011) 1 .…”

Section: Forensic Linguisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

19. Legal discourse: processes of making evidence in specialised legal corpora

Johnson¹

2014

Pragmatics of Discourse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Questioning has often been the focus of institutional legal discourse research across the domains of police interviews and courtroom interaction both in terms of the institutional participants and the lay respondents (e.g. Drew 1992; Archer 2005; Newbury and Johnson 2006; Tracy and Parks 2012). Though we know much about question design and evidence construction and negotiation from this work, there is more to be learned from cross-domain corpus-based research, particularly in the area of reported speech and quoting in legal discourse. This chapter focuses on pragmatic uses of the verb SAY in police interviewing and cross-examination discourse, using large specialised corpora. Combining insights from previous research on reported speech (Matoesian 2000; Galatolo 2007) in legal discourse and using a cross-corpus approach, we look at how actions of settling on agreed and contested evidential facts are accomplished. We see how patterns of use with SAY are linked to a range of institutional activities: arguing and stance making, doubting and rejecting, time-shifting and framing, which constitute professional activities of shifting and fixing states of knowledge against legal and moral discourses. Construction, acceptance and denial of the verbal "facts" is given "intertextual authority" (Matoesian 2000) by institutional participants: judges and lawyers.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the process is not necessarily bound to a single place and round: e.g., the jury trial providing the occasion for ongoing negotiations inside and outside court; the defence party's case work being performed in a complex social and temporal division of labor; or the Barrister's successive appropriation of the case (cf. Scheffer 2006), performed in specific, constructive steps and by way of various material intermediate products.…”

Section: Event and Process 171mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here, processes of writing, aimed at developing a speech or preparing a decision, are studied (cf. Cambrosio et al 1990;Scheffer 2006). Other studies center on preparatory practices, which serve to position, adjust, and combine the various bodies (cf.…”

Section: Early and Late Eventsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Event and Process: An Exercise in Analytical Ethnography

Scheffer

2007

Hum Stud

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analytical ethnography does not presume a principal analytical frame. It does not know (yet) where and when the field takes place. Rather, the ethnographer is in search for appropriate spatiotemporal frames in correspondence with the occurrences in the field. Accordingly, the author organizes a dialogue between conceptual frames and his various empirical accounts. He confronts snapshots of English Crown Court proceedings with models of event and process from microsociology and macro-sociology. A range of-more or less early or late, relevant or irrelevant, contingent or predetermined-processual events serves as the vantage point to access event and process relations. In this line, Crown Court proceedings serve as an introductory and exemplary field for analytical ethnography, because they involve both: (strong) events and their process and (strong) processes and their events.

show abstract

The Microformation of Criminal Defense: On the Lawyer's Notes, Speech Production,and a Field of Presence

Cited by 36 publications

References 12 publications

Orality and authenticity in an interpreter-mediated defendant’s examination

Orality and authenticity in an interpreter-mediated defendant’s examination

19. Legal discourse: processes of making evidence in specialised legal corpora

Event and Process: An Exercise in Analytical Ethnography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About