Control and resistance
Exploring witness testimony for narrative negotiation using question and answer types
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25071/2564-2855.42Keywords:
question type, witness resistance, question interruption, courtroom, narrative constructionsAbstract
Using questions strategically to control witness testimony is imperative to a successful criminal trial. Witnesses are not without power and can deploy resistance strategies in the face of controlling questioning. Through an examination of question typology, question function, and answer types, this paper aims to provide a holistic understanding of how counsel and witness negotiate narrative production through the unique turn-taking system present in witness testimony. Rachel Jeantel’s testimony, in the case of Florida v. Zimmerman, was analyzed to explore the relationship between question types, question functions, and type-conforming or resisting answers. Results are in line with general counsel strategies for direct and cross-examination; counsel prefer more controlling questions, with a higher relative proportion of controlling questions in cross relative to direct examination. Type-conforming responses are the most common response in both types of examination. Resistance strategies employed by the witness are more common in cross-examination. However, there exist interesting dynamics between avoidance, correction, and confirmation-eliciting questions. Finally, the presence of question clusters and interruptions may contribute to narrative control and resistance to such control.
References
Angermeyer, P. S. (2021). Beyond translation equivalence: Advocating pragmatic equality before the law. Journal of Pragmatics, 174, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.12.022
Cooper, M. N., Updegrove, A. H., Gabbidon, S. L., & Jordan, K. (2023). Pre-arrest perceptions of George Zimmerman’s guilt in the fatal Trayvon Martin shooting: Examining racial differences in the presumption of guilt. Crime & Delinquency, 69(4), 756–776. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287211022616
Dostal, P. (n.d.). Examinations-in-chief. The Criminal Law Notebook. https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Examinations-in-Chief
Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 470–520). Cambridge University Press.
Ehrlich, S., & Sidnell, J. (2006). “I think that’s not an assumption you ought to make”: Challenging presuppositions in inquiry testimony. Language in Society, 35(5), 655–676. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060313
Galatolo, R., & Drew, P. (2006). Narrative expansions as defensive practices in courtroom testimony. Text & Talk, 26(6), 661–698. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.028
Government of Ontario. (2012). Guide for accused persons in criminal trials. Ontario Courts. https://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/files/guides/guide-criminal.pdf
Harris, S. (2001). Fragmented narratives and multiple tellers: Witness and defendant accounts in Trials. Discourse Studies, 3, 53–74.
Heffer, C. (2005). The counsel as narrator. In The language of jury trial: A corpus-aided analysis of legal-lay discourse (pp. 95–125). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hodges, A. (2015). Ideologies of language and race in US media discourse about the Trayvon Martin shooting. Language in Society, 44(3), 401–423. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740451500024X
Hosman, L. A., & Siltanen, S. A. (2006). Powerful and powerless language forms: Their consequences for impression formation, attributions of control of self and control of others, cognitive responses, and message memory. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X05284477
Legal Information Institute. (n. d.). Rule 611. Mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_611
Mortensen, S. S. (2020). A question of control? Forms and functions of courtroom questioning in two different adversarial trial systems. Skandinaviske Sprogstudier / Scandinavian Studies in Language, 11(1), 239–278. https://doi.org/10.7146/sss.v11i1.121370
Newbury, P., & Johnson, A. (2006). Suspects’ resistance to constraining and coercive questioning strategies in the police interview. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 13(2), 213–240. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.2006.13.2.213
O’Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. Academic Press.
O’Barr, W. M., & Atkins, B. K. (1980). “Women’s language” or “powerless language”? In S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker, & N. Furman (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 93–110). Praeger.
Rickford, J., & King, S. (2016). Language and linguistics on trial: Hearing Rachel Jeantel (and other vernacular speakers) in the courtroom and beyond. Language (Baltimore), 92(4), 948–988. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0078
Roach, K. (2014). Blaming the victim: Canadian law, causation, and residential schools. The University of Toronto Law Journal, 64(4), 566–595. https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj.2419
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). On talk and its institutional occasions. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 101–134). Cambridge University Press.
Seuren, L. M. (2019). Questioning in court: The construction of direct examinations. Discourse Studies, 21(3), 340–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445618770483
Slobe, T. (2016). Creepy-ass cracker in post-racial America: Don West’s examination of Rachel Jeantel in the George Zimmerman murder trial. Text & Talk, 36(5), 613–635. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2016-0026
Sullivan, G. C. (2016). In your own words: Investigating voice, intertextuality, and credibility of Rachel Jeantel in the George Zimmerman trial. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 1, 13–1.
Woodbury, H. (1984). The strategic use of questions in court. Semiotica, 48(3–4), 197–228. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1984.48.3-4.197
Florida v. Zimmerman, 2013 SCSO 2012CF1083A, testimony of Rachel Jeantel (official transcript).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Irina Levit
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
-
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
-
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
