When watching “Making a Murderer”, I was rather alarmed at how often the lawyers used questions of the form “You didn’t…”? Particularly given that witnesses are often expected to just answer yes or no (or don’t realize a yes or no might be misinterpreted). A transcript is available here as a pdf fhttp://stevenaverycase.com/steven-avery-trial-transcripts/
I downloaded the “Full transcript of all days” pdf. Searching for instances of “you didn” I found a bunch of instances. Some answer “correct”, which seems like the best one word way of saying “Yes I did not”. But on page 335:
A. No, I did not.
Q. You didn’t?
A. No.
Technically the second answer contradicts the first. From the context, watching it live a juror would likely take the first answer (the one I think was intended). But reading it later, one might see it as a reversal, breaking down and admitting a lie. Usually these are answered “No”, and the context implies they mean “Yes I did not” (unless they are like “you didn’t. did you?” or “you didn’t. is that right?” in which case they seem to answer “yes” to imply “yes I did not”. And then there are cases like on page 735:
Q. But you didn’t get the tag until the next morning?
A. Yes.
Which from the context I think means “yes I didn’t”, but as noted above these are usually answered “No”. And on top of all this: technically a witness could use the ambiguity to lie under oath. Why don’t judges insist the lawyers never use a “You didn’t…?”. (Again think of the diffence between understanding the context live, and potentially getting confused reading it on paper later.)
I don’t interpret the second “no” that way at all. The witness probably could have clarified his answer by saying, “No. I did not,” but I interpreted the “no” as the witness saying essentially, “That is correct. I did not.”
It doesn’t look confusing to me. The second “No” is an abbreviated repetition of “No, I did not.”
I don’t see much, if any, ambiguity.
Q. Did you do X?
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. You didn’t?
A. No.
Q. So you did?
A. No.
Q. But you contradicted yourself!
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Yes, you did!
Judge. Counselor, don’t be a fucking idiot.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - Who’s on first, what’s on second, I don’t know is on third. And “English, do you speak it, motherfucker” is the umpire.
ETA: ‘motherfucker’ isn’t addressed to anyone in the thread, in case that’s not clear
Regards,
Shodan
French has three words with which to answer yes/no questions: Oui, Non, and (to refute or contradict a negative) Si. This eliminates the ambiguity.
In Shakespeare’s time, as I posted a year ago, English also had a contradictory Yes — it was ‘Yes.’ (‘Ay’ or ‘Yea’ was used for the normal Yes.)
Objection, asked and answered.
Kentucky Fried Movie:
*
Hornung: Mr. Grunwald, in addition to your occupation as a spoon, is it not true that you are a driving instructor?
Grunwald: No.
Hornung: Then it is true.
Grunwald: Yes.
Hornung: That you’re not a driving instructor?
Grunwald: No.
Hornung: Your Honor, I object to this line of questioning.
Judge: Overruled.
Hornung: Very well, then; I’d like some time to go over my briefs.
Judge: Please.
Hornung: [inspects his underwear] They’re fine.*
:p:p:p
I wonder if there is any historical incident of a defendant being convicted solely on the basis of one poorly-chosen word. I do recall reading a fiction book in which a defendant was guilty because he said he went “back” to the crime scene as opposed to just merely “going” to the crime scene.
A hypothetical scenario for thought:
Q. You didn’t put your pitbull on a leash?
Now think of either a yes or no answer. If the defendent is slumped in his chair, answers in a low voice, and is staring at the floor, it doesn’t matter if he answers yes or no, the inference was his pitbull was not on its leash. If he suddenly sits up straight, eyes wide, and answers in a higher pitched voice and otherwise looks exasperated, again it doesn’t matter if he says yes or no, the inference is he claims his pitbull was on its leash.
I don’t have a cite, but many years ago there was a series on IIRC PBS showing excerpts from an actual murder trial.
The defendant was kicked out of a party for being drunk and obstreperous. He went back to his truck, got a chainsaw ( :eek: ) and went back to the party - he said, to cut up the furniture. He couldn’t get the chainsaw started, so he ran to the kitchen and got a knife and stabbed someone, who died. The question of whether it was first-degree or second- hinged on something he said - that he said he brought the chainsaw to cut “them up”, by which he meant cut up the furniture. I never heard furniture referred to as “them”, only “it”, but again IIRC he was convicted of second-degree murder.
Regards,
Shodan
I can’t figure out how to edit a post, but I wanted to clarify in my pitbull example:
“the inference was his pitbull was not on its leash”
to
“the inference is he is admitting his pitbull was not on its leash”.
I don’t see the advantage of a lawyer asking a question in that format, other than to confuse the witness, and then he takes the chance of confusing the jury.
Regards,
Shodan
Can we agree:
- A justice system should be set up so the truth prevails.
- The truth is more likely to prevail if the jury is not confused.
- Questions in the form “You didn’t…” can confuse a jury. Rephrasing them as “Did you…” is not confusing.
- Therefore as a rule, lawyers should not be able to ask questions of the form “You didn’t…”
And why is it going on?
It’s going on, because it is ordinary discourse, and because when it gets confusing, the judge asks either the lawyer or the witness to clarify.
Regards,
Shodan
What Shodan just said.
It is also normal discourse to lie sarcastically, without explaining you are being sarcastic. I’m pretty sure that is not allowed under oath. Some jury members might be unable to catch when a witness is being sarcastic.
Really? I doubt that. How do you refer to multiple pieces of furniture? “Them” is the proper plural of “it” in the accusative case.
Question: “We’re having a party, but need more chairs. Do you have any card table chairs you can lend us?”
Answer: “Yes I have four you can borrow.”
Request: “Please remember to bring ____”
You’re going with “it” rather than “Them” in that sentence?
You can only edit a post within 5 minutes making it. There’s an “Edit” button at the bottom right of the post, next to “Reply with Quote”. click on that button within 5 minutes and you can edit it.
After the five minute window is up, the edit button disappears and your words are fixed until the heat death of the universe.
Testimony in US courts is normally handled in ordinary English by people who have a decent understanding of the language as it’s used. If testimony is actually unclear, the judges and lawyers involved will just ask for clarification to be sure. Testimony simply isn’t normally handled by the weird hyper-literal, single-definition parsing that some people apply to message board posts, and a lawyer trying to force a weird interpretation of clear, ordinary English answers like those in the OP will probably end up getting a contempt of court citation from the judge for doing so.