1 / 23

Common law Lawyers should mind their trial practices

Common law Lawyers should mind their trial practices. Understanding, Identifying, and Correcting a Semiotic Imbalance Edward J. Cyran. Which legal tradition is more just? Civil Law or Common Law?. A comparative lawyer’s response:

brenna
Télécharger la présentation

Common law Lawyers should mind their trial practices

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Common law Lawyers should mind their trial practices Understanding, Identifying, and Correcting a Semiotic Imbalance Edward J. Cyran

  2. Which legal tradition is more just? Civil Law or Common Law? • A comparative lawyer’s response: “...if [I] were innocent, [I] would prefer to be tried by a Civil Law court, but if [I] were guilty, [I]would prefer to be tried by a Common Law court.” - A Civil Law Tradition, Merryman and Perez-Perdomo (2007).

  3. An Artificial Discourse • What is it? • How is artificial discourse different than natural discourse? • Decision-making process in communication (authority vs. all people) • The character of a sign’s meaning (serving a goal of the discourse vs. pure development)

  4. The Reality of Legal Discourse • An institution achieves its goals by employing functionaries to define meaning. • Institution = Government • Goals = Justice, control, division of resources, etc. • Functionaries = Authorities = Master Signifiers • Examples • Legislators • Judges (Appellate and Trial) • Juries

  5. Who can participate in legal discourse? • Only those who communicate with the functionaries can influence the meaning of signs in discourse. • Examples • Lobbyists • Lawyers • You

  6. How is legal discourse limited? • Whenever communication is limited and the bounds of discussion narrowed, the semiotics of a process changes because potential meanings of signs are restrained. • Common Law • Stare Decisis – A Sea of Precedent • Constitutions • Legislative History • Public Policy

  7. How is legal discourse limited? • Civil Law • The Core Precept of Civil Law • Interpret the code with clarity, coherence, and consistency to uphold the law. • [Past rationales personally used by a judge • Truncated decisions of the ECJ or any superior court (only because judge seeks to avoid reversal)] • The Civil lawyer is not permitted to brief the judge on the above two aspects of legal discourse.

  8. Why are juries different? • Do not consider precedent • Not educated on precedent • Only authority is in the application of the facts of the case to the law

  9. Greimassian Narratives • Elementary structures of signification exist in the deep structure of all discourses • Legal discourse does not have a deep structure, i.e. a genotext • Nonetheless, juries are still influenced by Greimassian narratives. So, is such a structure of signification existing in the phenotext of legal discourse?

  10. The Actantial Model – A Model of Experience • Greimas identified the deep structure as being thematic, with the process of meaning occurring in the narrative form • Greimas believed that we begin each thought with a “goal” (the goal doesn’t have to be discernible at first) • Each goal involves a sign or semiotic object as its “subject” • The subject then proceeds through a narrative with actors influencing it • The narrative completes with a reflection upon the experience

  11. The Actantial Model – A Model of Experience Human action (whether real or fictional) thus appears meaningful in terms of a basic (“narrative”) sequence, which consists in the setting of goals (“contract”), “performance” (or non-performance) of those goals, and “recognition” of that performance (or non-performance) -- Bernard Jackson, An Outline of Greimassian Semiotics

  12. The First Narrative – The Story in the Trial • Fact-finders, whether juries or judges, process the factual story presented by the lawyer as a narrative • They also process the factual story presented by opposing counsel as a narrative • Subject = Fictional character of the Defendant or Plaintiff/Victim • Goal(s) = Fictional goal(s) that are expressed or implied by the storyteller; goal(s) that the fact-finder independently conceives

  13. The First Narrative – The Story in the Trial • Performance of Goals = What happens to the subject during the narrative • Recognition/Reflection upon Performance = Takes place in jurors’ minds after hearing the story

  14. The First Narrative – The Story in the Trial • With respect to the “Story in the Trial,” no semiotic differences exist between Common Law and Civil Law • Jury listens to the story like the Civil Law Judge does, and then applies the facts to the law

  15. The Second Narrative – The Most Significant Difference • In Civil Law countries, lawyers cannot ask the witness questions, whether by direct or cross examination • This difference in procedure severely limits, if not eliminates, the second narrative – “The Story of the Trial”

  16. The Second Narrative – The Story of the Trial • “Counsel, are you prepared to open?” • “Yes, Your Honor.” • ... and it starts • Welcome to “The Commonwealth v. Van Fleet” • On the charge of Impersonating a Police Officer • Starring Plaintiff’s Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel • Watch closely as they: • Compete with each other • Try to persuade you by their words and actions • Minimize each other’s arguments and tell you what “impersonating a police officer” really means in this case

  17. The Second Narrative – The Story of the Trial • Also watch closely as they: • Object to each other • Argue with the judge • Guide the witness through his or her testimony on direct examination • Cross-examine the witness in a way that makes you feel like the attorney is the one telling the story • Don’t miss the Final Act!

  18. The Second Narrative – The Story of the Trial • What does this narrative do?? • It manipulates meaning • No longer do you, the fact-finder, consider only the story in the trial, you consider the story of the trial • And not only that, but you consider all of the stories of the trial; including the one starring you, the jury

  19. A Semiotic “Imbalance” • The existence of an unwanted effect upon the development of meaning caused by any practice or procedure • An unwanted effect in legal semiotics is one that damages the development of meaning, thereby carrying a substantial risk of preventing the law from being administered—that is, preventing it from realizing its goal of determining whether the defendant did or did not do something illegal

  20. A Semiotic “Imbalance” • The potential for a semiotic imbalance in discourse exists when the discourse is susceptible to misuse, i.e. susceptible to the manipulation of meaning by an individual or a group of individuals • But, why care? • The ultimate goal of both the Common Law and Civil Law is certainty • Inaccurate application of the law to facts means that the law is not certain—and if it is uncertain, law is a meaningless endeavor!

  21. A Semiotic “Imbalance” • Two levels of understanding this phrase: • Within the legal tradition • The effect on the development of meaning (obfuscation of meaning) • Between the legal traditions • Civil Law avoids the situation, while Common Law has it

  22. A Semiotic “Imbalance” • More scholarship is needed • Where else do such manipulations of meaning occur? • If a Common lawyer mindful of semiotics was to try to avoid obfuscating meaning, what would he do? • Anything different? • Would clients hire that lawyer??

  23. Which legal tradition is more just? Civil Law or Common Law? “...if [I] were innocent, [I] would prefer to be tried by a Civil Law court, but if [I] were guilty, [I]would prefer to be tried by a Common Law court.” - A Civil Law Tradition, Merryman and Perez-Perdomo (2007).

More Related