This paper examines the legal import of ‘ambiguous’ lay-legal communication in two contexts of California capital trials. Using language data from trial transcripts and written opinions, the paper contrasts the courts’ treatment of ‘ambiguous’ or ‘equivocal’ responses by prospective jurors in the jury selection process with the analysis of suspects’ attempted invocations of rights during interrogations, most of which are rejected as too ‘ambiguous’ to have legal validity.
On the one hand, analysis of prospective jurors’ answers to questions concerning their willingness to impose a capital sentence has emphasized the importance of potential feedback and examination of the jurors’ entire selection colloquy, especially where queries consist of complex, multi-clause questions. See, e.g., People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 838.
On the other, in assessing rights invocations, criminal jurisprudence has downplayed contextual meaning in favor of broad-brush doctrinal interpretations, even though these contradict well-established communicative principles of pragmatic meaning. (Ainsworth 2008.) In a recent homicide case, for example, the courts’ failure to sufficiently consider obvious contextual factors (the suspect’s age and comprehension level) became the focus of a vigorous challenge. Joseph H. v. California (2016) WL 792197.
By viewing the two types of lay-legal communication in such distinctly different ways, tribunals may underscore and reinforce underlying social class (and linguistic) divisions often apparent in capital trials, in which majority jurors decide the fate of non-peers whose only speech at trial is presented via a recorded interrogation.
References
Ainsworth, J. "You have the right to remain silent… but only if you ask for it just so: the role of linguistic ideology in American police interrogation law." Intl. J. Speech, Language & Law 15.1 (2008).
Heffer, C., F. Rock, & J. Conley. (Eds.) Legal-lay Communication: Textual Travels in the Law. N.Y: Oxford U. Press. (2013).
Kitai-Sangero, R. & Y. Merin. "Probing into Salinas's Silence: Back to the 'Accused Speaks' Model?" 15 Nevada L.J. 77 (2015).
Shuy, R. Language Crimes: The Use and Abuse of Language Evidence in the courtroom. N.Y.: Oxford U. Press (1993).
Tiersma, P. & L.M. Solan (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. N.Y.: Oxford U. Press (2012).
