Cortells Critical Analysis of Simpsons Trial - Essay Example

Cortell’s Critical analysis of O J Simpson’s trial In offering the analysis of the O Simpson trial, Cotterill (2003) analysis the aspects of intertextuality, which may be described as the interrelations between written documents and oral depositions or talk as it is expressed within the precincts of the police stations during interrogations and in the courts during the trial process. The different outcomes in two separate cases that were filed in reference to allegations that OJ Simpson had murdered his wife, demonstrate how intertextuality, formulation of micronarrative and lawyer-witness interactional controls can determine jury perception of events in arriving at different final outcomes. The case was the same, the events were the same, the witnesses were more or less the same, yet the outcomes were different, demonstrating how forensic and legal narrative can be different. In the criminal case, O J Simpson was the defendant, who was accused of murdering his ex-wife and her male friend. As Coterill(2003:147) points out, one of the salient features of forensic narrative is that they are derived from multiple perspectives and expressed in multiple voices. The consistent element which underlies the multidimensional aspects of narrative is repetition. Coterill’s views highlight the importance of repetition in establishing consistency in testimony; as when oral narrative is transcribed into documentation, legal interactional patterns and micro narratives can lead to different interpretations of meaning. Coterill(2003:150) points out that intertextuality is not concerned with the “broader social voices and discourses which shape courtroom interaction more generally” but with “manifest intertextuality” wherein it is localised within the courtroom. (Corterill, 2003:150). A broader sphere of texts has applied in the Simpson trial, creating a more complex sphere of intertextuality. In truth, the very nature of intextuality is such that the broader social voices around the courtroom should not have played a role in influencing the outcomes in the trials; rather the verdicts reached in the courtroom should have been centred purely around the localized narrative of the courtroom, as elicited through the evidence and corroboration of testimony. But the high levels of publicity associated with the O J Simpson case inevitably influenced the outcomes in the subsequent case. As Nairna et al (2006) have demonstrated, intextuality influences forensic narrative by attributing different meanings across different texts, where a reference to a meaning in one text can be altered when read in the context of another text. Patients with mental illness and a proclivity to violence may be viewed as sick people in the clinical context, but the meaning of the proclivity to violence acquires a different meaning in the forensic context. Another significant aspect analyzed by Coterill is the “interactional and informational differences” between lay and expert witness testimony. The latter have an advantage when they are provided the opportunity to respond to questions with more narrative, as opposed to being restricted to answering yes or no. The manner in which these questions are structured and presented to the witnesses plays a significant role in influencing jury perception of the believability of the testimony. At the outset, power asymmetry exists between the lawyer and the witnesses because the lawyer controls the direction of the testimony and the witnesses can only communicate to the extent they are allowed some narration rather than being restricted to a yes or no answer. Cotrell(2003) has demonstrated how during the O.J. Simpson trial, the information asymmetry and power balances in the courtroom were reduced by allowing the expert witnesses a greater degree of freedom in their responses. They were better placed than lay witnesses because their testimony totalled 20,000 words. In one instance, a single narration from an expert witnesses went up to 433 words and there were also some instances of witness controlled interruptions, so that the level of lawyer’s interactional controls were reduced ( Coterill 2003:160). In the civil trial however, the interactional controls were different and were centered upon the lawyer, so that the perceptions of the jury are altered. Thus, evidence from the criminal testimony is introduced on the pretext of being a memory refresher for the witness, hence it is not viewed as coercive, which then allows the lawyer to present the same evidence in a different light, thereby bringing about a different outcome in the criminal and civil cases. In this context, one of the important aspects that Coterill (2003) discusses is “hard negotiating”, in which the Plaintiff’s turn is a “multiple” or a multi-faceted question (Coterill, 2003:141). In such an instance, a question may be posed to the witness which is in effect a single quesiton, but which contains several interrogatories or prepositions that would have the net effect of confusing the witness through the challenges in processing. This is revealed through an example of questioning the witness about the turnabouts in the Simpsons’ relationship during a period three weeks earlier, when Simpson left Los Angeles but believed that things would work out between them. The witnesses challenges the lawyer and states he’s wrong, but the wording of his response, i.e, when he ‘thought’ he would let her move back in with him. Despite Simpson’s choice to attack the time clause and re-word his response, the focus of the original question, i.e, the attitude and situation change – both remain unchallenged, and therefore the net result is that Simpson actually concedes the original question by inference, despite his oral denials. Coterill(2003) thus highlights the advantages of the multiple questions interrogation technique, because they are very useful to the examiner. Firstly, they serve as a roundabout means of forcing the witness to agree to certain facts and secondly, they also tend to discredit the testimony of the witness and impact negatively because they create confusion. It allows a lawyer a free rein in reconstructing a story based upon the confirmations of the witness. In Coterill’s (2003:142) words, “...this strategy does allow lawyers to insert potentially incriminating assertions within what may appear to be a relatively innocuous question.” Coterill (2003) also discusses the micro-narrative congruence between civil and criminal trials. For example, here was one key witness, Robert Heidstra, who testified incompetently at Simpson’s 1994 criminal trial and the 1996 civil trial, thereby uncovering a potential for manipulation of the narrative in the subsequent trial. The earlier one was a criminal trial raising four separate micro narratives, which were different from each other, but were raised again in the civil case. Hence, at the very outset, there was scope for the two trials to be centred around the same micro narratives, because the second case was a civil case filed by the families of the victims, as a result, since in the earlier criminal case, O J Simpson was acquitted, the same outcome should have accrued in the civil case as well. But the challenge of establishing consistency and verification of facts occurred between the civil and criminal cases, due to the number of witnesses and the differences in the four major micro narratives in the first case. Due to the prevalence of the other micro narratives, which placed Simpson elsewhere at the time of the murder and the identification of other potential killers, the court found Simpson not guilty. The decision in the criminal case was centered around the forensic narrative, where the necessary intertextuality did not establish consistency in testimony to a level adequate to prove the guilt of the plaintiff, Simpson. In the civil case however, the necessary intextuality cast a doubt upon the testimony. Coterill(2003:153-157) has clearly demonstrated how intertextuality has played a role in changing the final outcomes of the criminal versus the civil cases, through the lack of concordance between the oral testimony offered by witnesses such as Heidstra in the civil case and the specific testimony documentation of testimony from the earlier criminal case, which was used by the examining attorneys to place a different context upon the responses offered by the witness. As Coterill (2003) explains, the testimony of the witness as offered in the courtroom in the civil case was questioned in such a manner that Heidstra was placed in a no-win situation and doubt was cast upon her testimony. In the civil case, the number of witnesses who were used by the defence was half the number used in the earlier criminal trial and the required corroboration could not be as effectively established, to produce the outcome of exonerating Simpson by transferring the same meaning to a different forensic context. Moreover, the manner of presentation of evidence and testimony was altered quite considerably in the courtroom, such that by violating the maxim of manner, the inferences drawn were quite different. Coterill(2003) points out examples where incoherent and confused, long drawn out responses to answers posed to the defendant contributed towards heightening the negative perceptions of the jurors. For one, they violated the generally accepted witness maxim of being brief in offering testimony. Moreover, frequent pauses, hesitation and repetitions altered the testimony because it changed the “how” of witness delivery method, which Cotrell(2003) contends is far more important in arriving at an inference than what the witness actually says. In conclusion, it may thus be noted that where forensic narrative is concerned, legal interpretations and meanings may be altered by the micronarratives, intertextuality, interactional equations and the violation of maxims. In arriving at a judgment, every case is decided on its own merits, i.e, on the basis of the testimony and evidence that is offered by both sides. The meanings derived from different texts must lead to a common, verifiable inference. Despite the two cases on OJ Simpson being based upon the same events, one was a criminal case which exonerated him of causing direct harm to his wife but the other was a civil case that found him guilty of causing harm to other victims who were peripheral in the earlier case. The difference accrued largely as a result of the techniques of questioning used by the plaintiff lawyers, who were able to discredit the oral testimony of witnesses so that the required degree of certainty about events could not be established as the meaning was altered in a different context. The defence also failed to strive to ensure that an adequate number of witnesses were available to establish the necessary degree of concordance; as a result the legal narrative altered outcomes in the civil and criminal cases. References *Coterill, Jane, 2003. “Language in the legal process”, Palgrave Macmillan *Nairn, Raymond, Covedale, John H and Claasen, Donna, 2006. “What is the role of intertextulaiyt in media depictions of media illness? Implications for forensic psychiatry”, Psychiatry, Psychology and law, 13(2): 243-250 Read More