Trial Transcripts Research Articles

Tipsy Testimonies: The Effect of Alcohol Intoxication Status, Crime Role and Juror Characteristics on Mock Jury Decision‐Making

ABSTRACTVictims and witnesses are regularly intoxicated with alcohol during crimes and jurors must evaluate their testimony when making decisions. The current study employed a 2 (crime role: victim, witness) × 4 (victim/witness intoxication status: sober, low, moderate, severe) between‐subjects design. Juror characteristics (e.g., alcohol expectancies, personal alcohol consumption, alcohol‐related work experience, demographic factors) were also explored as predictors of mock jury decision‐making. Participants (N = 181) read a trial transcript and completed a survey assessing trial‐related judgements, demographics, and expectations about and experiences with alcohol. Lower victim/witness intoxication was associated with higher credibility ratings, lower cognitive impairment ratings, and more convictions. Crime role did not impact dependent variables and juror characteristics had a limited influence: only alcohol‐related work experience and the perceived gender of the victim/witness predicted a minority of decision types. The current study asserts the need for evidence‐based jury education about alcohol and eyewitness memory with a focus on delivery via familiar metrics.

Reconsidering ‘Sook Ching’ victimhood: A microhistory of Singapore’s Nishimura trial

AbstractThis article highlights the cross-disciplinary methodological potential of Third World approaches to international law (TWAIL) and microhistory by studying the active and complex exercise of agency by victims in an understudied historical instance of post-war justice, namely, the Singapore ‘Sook Ching’ trial or Nishimura trial. This trial dealt with the arbitrary massacre of Chinese residents by the Japanese military during the Second World War. Using TWAIL and microhistory methods, this article analyses trial transcripts and archival material on the Nishimura trial, with a focus on the trial experiences of witnesses, survivors, and community representatives. By studying the Nishimura trial as mobilization and meaning-making opportunity, this microhistory draws attention to the exercise of social and political agency by the Chinese community under difficult post-war conditions and British colonial rule. Chinese community leaders represented the community as collectively victimized and united in the pursuit of post-war justice. However, a close analysis of trial transcripts reveals tensions within the community and the need for a more complex understanding of victimhood.

Automate or Assist? The Role of Computational Models in Identifying Gendered Discourse in US Capital Trial Transcripts

The language used by US courtroom actors in criminal trials has long been studied for biases. However, systematic studies for bias in high-stakes court trials have been difficult, due to the nuanced nature of bias and the legal expertise required. Large language models offer the possibility to automate annotation. But validating the computational approach requires both an understanding of how automated methods fit in existing annotation workflows and what they really offer. We present a case study of adding a computational model to a complex and high-stakes problem: identifying gender-biased language in US capital trials for women defendants. Our team of experienced death-penalty lawyers and NLP technologists pursue a three-phase study: first annotating manually, then training and evaluating computational models, and finally comparing expert annotations to model predictions. Unlike many typical NLP tasks, annotating for gender bias in months-long capital trials is complicated, with many individual judgment calls. Contrary to standard arguments for automation that are based on efficiency and scalability, legal experts find the computational models most useful in providing opportunities to reflect on their own bias in annotation and to build consensus on annotation rules. This experience suggests that seeking to replace experts with computational models for complex annotation is both unrealistic and undesirable. Rather, computational models offer valuable opportunities to assist the legal experts in annotation-based studies.

Survey of change-of-venue motions in appellate court transcripts of murder trials (2000-2020): Which factors make a difference?

A court may move the location of the trial to another jurisdiction if the jury pool is deemed biased by the judge, a legal maneuver based on a "Change of Venue" motion (CoVm). We surveyed the frequency and the factors associated with granting the motion at the state level when the defendant was charged with murder. We reviewed court transcripts of appealed murder convictions during the 2000-2020years from Nexis. We complied a sample of 832 CoVm and conducted a nested regression analysis. We repeated the procedure with a subset of 360 CoVm for which we could identify the race of the defendant and victim. Overall, the success rate of CoVm was 23.5% but varied widely between the states. The motion was more likely to be granted in jurisdictions with smaller populations and a policeman was the victim. It was also found that Black and Latino defendants were less successful than Whites in winning CoVm. The racial disparity in CoVm decisions is especially concerning given past findings that people of color suffer heightened negative local pretrial publicity. In light of the findings, we advocate for a more uniform state legislation.

Juror Decision-Making in a Case Involving Police Use of Force: The Impact of Defendant Race, Victim Race, and Victim Gender on Verdict and Perceptions

In recent years, cases of police use of force have been making headlines and sparked a global conversation about racial bias in policing. As such, the current study aimed to uncover how race and gender impact juror decision-making in a case involving mistaken identity by police. We hypothesized that mock-jurors would be more likely to assign guilty verdicts and have a more negative perception of the defendant when the defendant is White versus Indigenous, and when the victim is White and female. Mock-jurors (N = 229) read one of eight fictional trial transcripts, provided a dichotomous verdict, and responded to questions regarding their perceptions of the defendant and the victim. While there was no significant impact on the dichotomous verdict or continuous guilt, the mock-jurors had a significantly more favourable perception of the Indigenous defendant.

On the Shoulders of Giants Through the Lens of the Laparoscope Dr. Harry Reich: Empathy, Optics and Courage.

Harry Reich, MD, FACOG, FRCOG, FACS is known worldwide as a pioneer in the field of laparoscopic surgery. He performed the first laparoscopic hysterectomy, the first pelvic lymphadenectomy for cancer, and the first excision of cul-de-sac endometriosis that included rectal resection. This article explores his life and contributions. The author knew Dr. Reich from medical conferences over many years and visited Dr. Reich in Pennsylvania to observe him in the operating room. For this article, the author spoke with Dr. Reich on nearly a nightly basis over a 13-month period in 2022 and 2023. Dr. Reich's descriptions were cross-referenced with his publications and those of his peers. The author also interviewed physicians who worked closely with Dr. Reich and reviewed the trial transcript of the February 1980 Nesbitt Memorial Hospital special ad hoc investigatory committee. The result is a comprehensive review spanning from Dr. Reich's early life to his ultimate recognition as one of the most significant innovators of advanced laparoscopic surgery. The author concluded that Dr. Reich's accomplishments are rooted in his command of pelvic anatomy, his lifelong interest in surgery and his willingness to challenge existing surgical dogma. By attending medical school in Ireland, Dr. Reich benefitted from the deep study of anatomy offered there. He also had a unique background of being a Harvard-trained gynecologic surgeon practicing in Wilkes-Barre, a small Pennsylvania community that trusted him because both his parents practiced medicine there before him. Dr. Reich favored conservative surgery rather than hysterectomy for endometriosis and patiently excised deep disease, offering relief to countless women, at times without compensation. He exhibited astonishing bravery and perseverance in the face of scathing criticism. Dr. Harry Reich's empathy for his patients and willingness to challenge the status quo were pivotal in improving the lives of many thousands of women and revolutionizing gynecologic surgery.

Attorneys' Questions About Time in Criminal Cases of Alleged Child Sexual Abuse.

In cases of alleged child sexual abuse, information about the timing of events is often needed. However, published developmental laboratory research has demonstrated that children struggle to provide accurate and reliable testimony about time and there is currently a lack of field research examining how attorneys actually question child witnesses about time in court. The current study analyzed 130 trial transcripts from cases of alleged child sexual abuse containing a child witness between the ages of 5-17years old to determine the frequency, style, and content of attorneys' questions and child responses about time. We found that attorneys primarily ask closed-ended temporal location questions (i.e., asking when an event took place using a temporal construct such as day, month, and year) to child witnesses. Additionally, children, of all ages, rarely said "I don't know" or expressed uncertainty in response to temporal questions. These findings are concerning as researchers find that children tend to struggle with temporally locating past events.

An Analysis of Amber Heard's Statements in the Johnny Depp Defamation Case

A defamatory act is any act of speech that disparages the reputation of a person. Defamation is committed by conveying speech in the form of a series of words or sentences by accusing a person of certain actions, which are aimed at honor and good name so that it can result in the person's dignity or dignity being humiliated or degraded. This research aims to examine Amber Heard's statements for defaming Johnny Depp. The data analyzed are Amber Heard's several statements that indicates false and defamatory (primary data) and also her testimony during the trial as supporting data (secondary data). The primary data was collected and observed through the articles op-ed which written by Amber Heard in Washington Post and the secondary data was collected through the trial transcript. This study uses a qualitative research method that describes data to determine the elements that can defame a person based on forensic linguistic studies. By using this study, the data that has been selected was analyzed using lexical semantics, pragmatics (speech acts), and linked to legislation based on Virginia Law. The researchers found three statements that proved to be defamatory and acted with obvious malice that have damaged Johnny Depp's reputation. The findings of this study have significant implications, showing that defamatory statements can have a profound and lasting impact on an individual's reputation and public perception, emphasizing the importance of the law in protecting and addressing such acts.

The Role of Defendant Gender and PTSD Diagnosis in a Battered Spouse Case.

A quarter of women and 11% of men report being survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) during their lifetimes in the United States. Despite being victims themselves, people who kill their IPV abuser can still be subject to criminal proceedings. Given this complexity, the law has employed battered spouse syndrome (BSS) as a tool used in some jurisdictions to support a claim that an IPV survivor killed in self-defense. A defendant who is attempting to claim self-defense using BSS may introduce testimony of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, a diagnosis of PTSD can pose problems in admission during litigation as the occurrence of a traumatic event is often what is being decided. The present study examined how college students, living on the U.S.-México border, perceive survivors-turned-defendants in a BSS mock trial. Specifically, we had each participant read a written trial transcript of a mock trial where gender of the defendant and clinical diagnosis of PTSD were manipulated. The current study hypothesized that jurors would be more lenient toward female defendants than male defendants (Hypothesis 1), jurors would be influenced by a PTSD diagnosis of the defendant (Hypothesis 2a-b), and female jurors would be more lenient than male jurors (Hypothesis 3). We also wanted to examine the impact of victim blaming, sexism, stigma of PTSD, and prior exposure to IPV on decision-making (Hypothesis 4a-d). Findings showed jurors were more lenient with female defendants than male defendants, however there was no effect of clinical diagnosis except on difficulty of decision. Implications of the role defendant gender has in decision-making is discussed.

The Role of Complainant/Defendant Gender and Form of Sexual Assault on Jurors' Perceptions of Prototypicality and Verdicts.

We sought to test the effects of sexual assault form and complainant/defendant gender on jurors' perceptions of the prototypicality of a sexual assault case, complainant, and defendant. We examined whether these perceived prototypicality measures predict mock jurors' complainant/defendant blame and credibility assessments and if these assessments predict verdict decisions in a simulated sexual assault trial. We predicted that the female complainant-male defendant condition, vaginal intercourse condition, and their combination would be perceived as more prototypical than their counterparts, which would predict blame/credibility assessments, ultimately predicting verdict. Mock jurors (N = 437) recruited via Prolific Academic read a trial transcript involving an alleged sexual assault (oral or vaginal sex forced onto the complainant) with a female complainant-male defendant or a male complainant-female defendant. They provided a verdict and assessed the perceived prototypicality of the case/complainant/defendant, provided blame/credibility assessments for the complainant/defendant, and responded to rape myth questionnaires. Sexual assault form did not significantly affect any of our outcomes. Mock jurors perceived the male complainant-female defendant condition as less prototypical of a sexual assault case/complainant/defendant than the female complainant-male defendant condition, resulting in negative evaluations of the complainant, favorable evaluations of the defendant, and lowered probability of conviction. Simultaneously, for fixed levels of prototypicality, the female complainant received more negative evaluations, and the male defendant received more favorable evaluations, which lowered the probability of conviction; mock jurors' rape myth acceptance moderated this effect. Rape myths were predictive of decision-making in cases involving a female complainant, and male rape myths were predictive in cases involving a male complainant. Results demonstrate that prototypicality is a mechanism behind mock jurors' decisions in sexual assault trials and elucidate the distinctive role of prototypes and rape myths on juror decision-making, with practical implications for the field of psychology and the criminal legal system.

Prosecutorial Language, Moral Disengagement, and Sentencing Outcomes in Real Capital Murder Cases

AbstractLanguage reflecting moral disengagement has been shown to influence juries in mock juror studies; however, little to no research has examined this in actual murder cases. Prosecutors play an influential role in capital murder cases during both the guilt phase and sentencing phase of the trial. If a defendant is found guilty, jurors must then decide the appropriate sentence, which can be difficult when the penalties include death versus life without parole. Self-report and mock trial studies suggest that jurors may engage in moral disengagement methods (e.g., moral justification, dehumanizing language) that allow them to distance themselves from the decision. Capital murder trial transcripts were analyzed to investigate the influence of moral disengagement variables on sentencing (“death” versus “life without the possibility of parole”). Results indicate that arguments for future dangerousness were positively correlated with death penalty verdicts, although other types of moral disengagement language strategies were not. An additional linguistic strategy was included, which investigated language that might garner empathy for the victim. This was also positively correlated with a death penalty verdict. This analysis of capital murder trial transcripts reveals differences in influential moral displacement strategies than mock juror studies suggest.

Social Framework Testimony and Race Salience: Examining Bias Correction in the Current Context

This juror-simulation study tested whether expert testimony about police relations with Black/Indigenous persons would mitigate potential verdict discrepancies by making race a salient issue, and whether perceived police legitimacy would predict perceptions of race salience and/or effectiveness of the salience manipulation. Jury-eligible community members (N = 392) read a trial transcript in which the defendant claims self-defense for the killing of a police officer. We manipulated defendant race (Black/Indigenous/White) and the presence of expert testimony in which a sociologist described the experience of racialized persons with police. Participants provided verdicts, rated perceptions that racial issues featured prominently in the trial (i.e., perceived race salience), and completed a police legitimacy measure. Results revealed non-significant effects of defendant race and expert testimony on verdicts. Those higher in perceptions of police legitimacy had a greater likelihood of voting guilty and less favourable attitudes toward the expert, with the opposite pattern for those higher in perceived race salience.

Jesuit Mission Funding and Legacy Donations: Revisiting the Belgian Controversy over the Disposition of the De Boey Estate, 1850–1868*

During the mid‐1860s, the Belgian press and politics were riveted by legal proceedings alleging Jesuit financial predation against the estate of noted Antwerp businessman and donor to religious causes Guillaume‐Joseph De Boey. These controversies remain understudied in prominent scholarship on De Boey's extensive support for Jesuit missions in the United States. More recent scholarship on religious contestation in Belgian politics during the 1850s and 1860s explores the trials but focuses on their politicisation and prominence of anti‐Jesuit tropes more than the potential accuracy of the allegations of impropriety. Combining these literatures with trial transcripts and archival research, this article revisits the De Boey case to explore ways in which Jesuit funding for overseas missions navigated legal restrictions on private donations. The article reveals a pattern of proxies and regulatory evasion, but one conducted through donor complicity more than Jesuit predation. These findings add to the historiography of Jesuit funding networks and support for overseas missions.

Ethical challenges of using trial transcripts for research purposes: A case study of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Abstract Drawing on three years of empirical research, the article explores four ethical challenges of working with trial transcripts: lack of participant consent; impossibility of research reciprocity; the risk that one’s use of these materials can be harmful to the local communities, and the risk that this use might be harmful to the researchers themselves.

Child-Taking

A ruling group at times takes certain children out of their community and then tries to remake them in its image. It tries to rid the child of undesired differences, in ethnicity or nationality, religion or politics, race or ancestry, culture or class. There are too many examples: the colonialist residential schools that forced settler cultures on Indigenous children; the military juntas that kidnapped dissidents’ children; and today’s reports of abductions amid crises like that in Syria. Too often nothing is done, and the children are lost. But that may be changing, as the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) is seeking to arrest Russian President Vladimir Putin and Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Lvova-Belova for the war crimes of unlawfully deporting or transferring children from Ukraine to Russia. This article examines the criminal phenomenon that it names “child-taking.” By its definition, the crime occurs when a state or similar powerful entity, first, takes a child, and second, endeavors, whether successfully or not, to alter, erase, or remake the child’s identity. Using the ICC case as a springboard, this article relies on historical and legal events to produce an original account of child-taking. Newly available trial transcripts help bring to life a bereft mother and five teenaged survivors, plus the lone woman defendant, who testified at a little-known child-kidnapping trial before a postwar Nuremberg tribunal. Their stories, viewed in the context of the evolution of international child law, inform this article’s definition. These sources further reveal child-taking to be what the law calls a matter of international concern. At its most serious, child-taking may constitute genocide or another crime within the ICC’s jurisdiction. Yet even if circumstances preclude punishment in that permanent criminal court, child-taking remains a grave offense warranting prosecution or other forms of local and global transitional justice. This is as true for the Indigenous children of residential schools in North America, Australia, and elsewhere, and for children in Syria and many other places in the world, as it is for the children of Ukraine.

Pearson v. Pearson: A Story of Slavery, Marriage, and the West, Told in Black and White

This Article is a narrative history of a relationship between a white man named Richard and a Black woman named Laura that started in slavery and ended twenty-seven years later in a trial over whether they were husband and wife. The story follows some of the usual plotlines. Richard purchased Laura at a slave sale and brought her to his home in Missouri; he then married a white woman and they had a daughter together. Within a few years, however, that marriage fell apart, and soon after, Richard allegedly freed Laura and the two of them went to California and built a life together. Twenty years later, after Richard died, Richard’s long-lost daughter brought suit in a California courtroom. She sought to eject Laura from the home she shared with Richard on the theory she, rather than Laura, was Richard’s sole surviving heir and entitled to his large estate. This Article recreates the story of Richard and Laura to offer an intimate glimpse into the complexities of interracial relationships during slavery and the decades that followed. It is built out of the trial transcripts—which until now have remained hidden for 150 years—and relies heavily on the actual words of the lawyers, witnesses, and litigants to shape the narrative. The uniqueness of this approach is also what provides its value. Relying on their words and voices, this Article shines a light on how the parties and the participants saw their world, not on how others saw it for them. Richard and Laura’s story is also noteworthy in that it spans several decades and unfolds over several milestones—slavery, the Gold Rush, and westward expansion—creating the opportunity to expand our understanding of the individual experiences of people involved in Black-white relationships beyond what is typically found in the literature. Hearing about their story, and about the courtroom battle over the legitimacy of their relationship, provides context for why interracial families, even today, continue to suffer from minor indignities and open hostilities simply because they broke the norm.

Culture and the Illusion of Self-Evidence: Spiritual Beliefs in the Ongwen Trial

Abstract By definition, criminal trials are set to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. In this process, judges are tasked with assessing not only evidence that presents itself in quantifiable forms, but also as personal experiences. In the case of Dominic Ongwen, a former child soldier and commander of the Lord’s Resistance Army (lra), the issue of spiritualism played a significant role, particularly in relation to the affirmative defences of mental incapacity and duress. Assessing such culturally charged evidence, inherently interconnected to local beliefs, through the lens of an international criminal law trial raises a number of challenges. In the construction of the legal truth, such immaterial evidence undergoes a process through which only certain elements, which are deemed relevant in light of specific arguments, are ultimately selected, filtered through the legal framework, contested by the parties and ultimately decided upon by the judges. Spiritual beliefs therefore become patterns, and patterns become certainties. Based on an in-depth analysis of 408 trial transcripts, along with main submissions and decisions, this article sheds light into how framing spiritualism according to the criteria laid out in the Rome Statute has played out in the trial of Dominic Ongwen. It maps the way in which cultural concepts related to spirituality have been introduced into the trial, by which parties and for what purpose. It also looks at how the system of spiritual powers guiding the lra and its fighters was assessed by the judges and potentially why.

Reframing the ‘Reasonable Officer’ and Victim/Suspect in the Trial of Philip Brailsford

Abstract Policing has long been theoretically linked to the power of the state, but the relationship between police and state has more often been assumed than explored. This article contributes to an emerging anthropology of police that gives insight into how state power is enacted through particular processes or events. It focuses on an event of police accountability: the trial of Philip Brailsford for the on-duty shooting of Daniel Shaver. Through an analysis of trial transcripts, I argue that Brailsford's defense reframed both victim and officer to suggest that Brailsford was a ‘reasonable officer’ who was subject to state power, and that Shaver was legitimately subject to police violence as a ‘suspect’.

Life or death: A qualitative examination of mitigating and aggravating evidence presented in capital trials.

The US Supreme Court has required that death penalty procedures narrow the class of persons eligible for a death sentence. Through the selection requirement, juries must use mitigating and aggravating evidence jointly to determine if a defendant is one of the worst of the worst, resulting in a sentence of life without parole or death. This study analyzed capital trial transcripts from the punishment phase to assess the type and amount of mitigating and aggravating evidence presented to jurors in cases resulting in life without parole and death. The main assumption of the research was that cases resulting in life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) would reveal patterns in the types of evidence presented and differing patterns in cases where the jury handed down a sentence of death. The study qualitatively examined the trial transcripts from the punishment phase of 18 capital murders (nine resulting in LWOP and nine in death). The extra-legal factors from each LWOP case were matched to a death case to eliminate sentencing discrepancies based on jurisdiction, race of defendant or victim, aggravator, age etc. The results found no consistent patterns of evidence presented in cases resulting life without parole and some relevant patterns in sentences resulting in death.

Repeated, imagined, hearsay

Abstract In this paper, I analyse the representation of reported discourse in testimony from a 1795 conspiracy trial. I present a framework for analysing scribal intervention in discourse reporting and show that, although the transcription conventions of historical criminal proceedings offer the appearance of being objective representations, recorded testimony privileges idealised representations of speech events. In fact, a special status is given to those speech events to which those in the courtroom were not privy, that is, hearsay. When scribes use Direct Discourse to report this type of speech, they are simultaneously marking it as evidence available for judicial decision-making and distancing themselves from the judgment and interpretation process. I show that this is particularly problematic for interpreted testimony. This has implications for both our understanding of historical courtroom processes and the use of trial transcripts for historical sociolinguistic and pragmatic analysis.