Based on your visit to the Bristol Crown Court, describe how language is used in the courtroom. Illustrate and evaluate some of the most common strategies that are used by lawyers when cross-examining witnesses, where possible based on data from an actual courtroom.
Introduction
Language is something that is used in everyday life, we use it to communicate, to tell stories, to educate and as a form of power and persuasion. In the setting of the law this applies even more so, different strategies are employed in the courtroom and delivered by lexical choice, narrative, questioning and jargon. In my latest visit to Bristol Crown Court I sat in the pubic gallery and watched a trial unfold, whilst sat in this surreal environment surrounded by the layers of the courtroom, I was a witness to the power dynamics of a courtroom and how language was used in a way to control this.
Review of literature
In day-to-day life we make judgement calls on what we believe is normal. Schemata are pre-conceived ideas that we have, they let us make sense and understand situations. When in the courtroom jurors may reach their verdict differently, some maybe swayed by the arguments proposed by the lawyers, others maybe swayed by other jurors and some will rely on the evidence provided. However, one thing is certain, all of the jurors will be using schemas as a
…show more content…
We often group words together in a semantic field, for example the word ‘murder’ has negative connotations. If you look at the language used by the lawyers when the cross examination is taking place, it is clear that they use words that they believe will trigger emotion with the jurors. Halliday suggests that language is the way it is because of what it has to do (Halliday, 1994) this is demonstrated carefully in a courtroom, when lawyers use law jargon and lexemes to suit their
As one of the seven jury deliberations documented and recorded in the ABC News television series In the Jury Room the discussions of the jurors were able to be seen throughout the United States. A transcript was also created by ABC News for the public as well. The emotions and interactions of the jurors were now capable of being portrayed to anyone interested in the interworkings of jury deliberations. The first task,...
Twelve Angry Men is a depiction of twelve jurors who deliberate over the verdict of a young defendant accused of murder, highlighting many key communications concepts discussed throughout the semester. One of these concepts was the perspective of a true consensus, the complete satisfaction of a decision by all parties attributed. An array of inferences were illustrated in the movie (some spawning collective inferences) as well as defiance among the jurors. Each of these concepts play a role endorsing, or emphasizing the other. We can analyze the final verdict of the jurors and establish if there was a true consensus affecting their decision. In turn, we can analyze the inferences during the deliberation and directly link how they affect the consensus (or lack thereof). Defiance among the jurors was also directly
Courtroom experiences between 1200 and 1535 varied greatly. By the thirteenth century much has begun to evolve in the judicial process with the division of courts and evolving ideas about justice. Judges and juries appear to be somewhat evenhanded, and in cases in which one party felt wronged they could file an appeal. One can see myriad influences from the early legal codes like those found in the early Anglo Saxon records, especially within the legal concept of trespass. Trespass is one issue which seems problematic. Trespass, a concept which was quite broad looks to have excluded the addressing of any criminal elements involved in the cases. The courtroom experience of the of the law courts of England circa 1300-1535 was a simplified,
Throughout history there have always been issues concerning judicial courts and proceedings: issues that include everything from the new democracy of Athens, Greece, to the controversial verdict in the Casey Anthony trial as well as the Trayvon Martin trial. One of the more recent and ever changing issues revolves around cameras being allowed and used inside courtrooms. It was stated in the Handbook of Court Administration and Management by Stephen W. Hays and Cole Blease Graham, Jr. that “the question of whether or not to allow cameras in American courtrooms has been debated for nearly fifty years by scholars, media representatives, concerned citizens, and others involved in the criminal justice system.” The negatives that can be attached to the presence of cameras inside a courtroom are just as present, if not more present, than the positives that go hand-in-hand with the presence of cameras.
Both of the objectives have a teaching method that gives jurors no time management and no chance to comprehend the differences. In the court system they have two laws; one is black-letter law, and commonsense justice. Black-letter law is a generally known law plus the most common, and it is what the legislators have endorsed, and it was intertwined through the “common-law cases and appeals decisions.” Black-letter law takes the instructions away from second guesses, and disagreements, and makes a set of clear and precise rules. (Norman J. Finkel, 2000).
The courtroom is a ritualised space in which many features are effectively manipulated to demonstrate the states power over the individual. It is because of such displays of power that the courtroom is commonly identified as a place of justice where social order is upheld. Upon observing civil courtrooms 5.1 and 5.6 it was clear that the architecture and spatial organisation of the room plays a significant role in displaying the various power relations between the courtroom actors. Interior features such as structural elevation, spatial organisation, lighting, entrances and design effectively highlight power disparities. Furthermore language was a vital factor in the determination of one’s status within the courtroom. Differentiations of power were evident through the use of legal terminology, the contrast of formal language and colloquialism, and the manipulation of rhetoric in cross-examinations.
Thompson, Ellia. "Courtroom cameras: issue moves in and out of focus." The Quill Sept. 2004: 7+. Academic OneFile. Web. 19 Nov. 2011.
Recruitment of any kind is heavily frowned upon, and to believe that our legal system takes part in it is blasphemous. In Document F a “recruiter” of the court system holds an interview with a potential jury
The NSW Criminal Justice System is adequate when dealing with young offenders; however, like any legal system it does have its limitations. The NSW Criminal justice system does uphold the rights of the young offender by providing juveniles with special courts under the Childrens Court Act 1987 (NSW) by providing special protections under the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child; the recognising of culpability in regards to the age of the young offender by implementing doli incapax and by arranging a variety of diversionary programs and alternative punishments. However, the limitations of the NSW Criminal justice system in relation to young offenders is Doli Incapax in the The Childrens (Criminal Proceedings Act 1987) NSW which fails to recognise more serious offenders and The Young Offenders Act allowance for youth justice conferencing is not being cultivated for a wide enough range of offenders, leading the exclusion of some young offenders from the benefits that conferencing can offer.
Stevenson, D 2012, The function of uncertainty within jury systems, George Mason Law Review, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 513-548, viewed 6 May 2014, .
From conception in the Magna Carta 1215, juries have become a sacred constitutional right in the UK’s justice system, with the independence of the jury from the judge established in the R v. Bushel’s case 1670. Although viewed by some as a bothersome and an unwelcomed duty, by others it is perceived to be a prized and inalienable right, and as Lord Devlin comments ‘ trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution : it is the lamp that shows freedom lives.’ It is arguable that juries bring a ‘unique legitimacy’ to the judicial process, but recently it seems that their abolition may be the next step forward for the UK in modernising and making the judicial system more effective. Many argue that jurors lack the expertise and knowledge to make informed verdicts, along with views that external forces are now influencing juries more heavily, especially after the emergence of the internet and the heavy presence it now has on our lives. Yet, corruption within the jury system is also internal, in that professionals and academics may ‘steamroll’ others during deliberations about the case. These factors, coupled with the exorbitant costs that come along with jury trials creates a solid case for the abolition of juries. On the other hand though, the jury system carries many loyal supporters who fear its abolition may be detrimental to society. Academics and professionals such as John Morris QC state that; 'it may well not be the perfect machine, but it is a system that has stood the test of time.’ Juries ensure fair-practice within the courtroom, and although controversial, they have the power to rule on moral and social grounds, rather than just legal pre...
juror including race and sex. Part of the reasoning behind the right to a jury
“Witness for the Prosecution” superbly demonstrated a realist view of the operating procedures in a courtroom. The actors within the courtroom were easy to identify, and the steps transitioned smoothly from the arrest to the reading of the verdict. The murder trial of Leonard Vole provided realistic insight into how laws on the books are used in courtroom proceedings. With the inferior elements noted, the superior element of the court system in “Witness for the Prosecution” was the use of the adversary system. Both sides of the adversary system were flawlessly protrayed when the prosecution and defense squared off in the courtroom.
After analyzing the discourse community of law and the detailed process lawyers take in order to write an effective appeals brief, one can see that lawyers have a very specific and unique way of communicating that includes certain jargon unfamiliar and possibly incomprehensible to the general public. Although writing an appeal brief is only one aspect of many that government prosecuting attorneys such as Kenny Elser face in their jobs on a daily basis, it is also a very necessary job because not only is it used by a single discourse community in the law profession but utilized by the discourse community of law as a whole.
The courtroom is a place where cases are heard and deliberated as evidence is produced to prove whether the accused person is innocent or guilty. Different courtroom varies depending on the hierarchy and the type of cases, they deliberate upon in the courtroom. In the United States, the courts are closely interlinked through a hierarchical system at either the state or the federal level. Therefore, the court must have jurisdiction before it takes upon a case, deliberate, and come up with a judgment on it. The criminal case is different from the civil cases, especially when it comes to the court layout. In this essay, I will explain how I experienced a courtroom visit and the important issues are learnt from the visit.