Caso di studio linguistico, Guide, Progetti e Ricerche di Linguistica Inglese

Scarica Caso di studio linguistico e più Guide, Progetti e Ricerche in PDF di Linguistica Inglese solo su Docsity! The Duty of Clear Speech 1 Running Head: THE DUTY OF CLEAR SPEECH The Duty of Clear Speech in the “Miranda v. Arizona” Trial occurred in 1966 Fadoa Khald University of Bergamo The Duty of Clear Speech 2 The Duty of Clear Speech in the “Miranda v. Arizona” Trial occurred in 1966 “A Bill of Right is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.” Thomas Jefferson – 1787 This is definitely one of the most meaningful quote that could sum up this article’s case. Indeed, the Bill of Rights was created to protect the natural rights of liberty for all Americans and to prevent the federal government from limiting them. From a linguistic point of view, the American Constitution is built, I would say, in a perfect way thanks to the right choices of words that provide a better explanation of the Amendments. It is written clearly so no one can misinterpret or misunderstand it, even though some studies still try to give a double meaning to this document. To explain this interesting concept, I am going to take into consideration one particular Amendment: the 5th one. Briefly, it does cover rights found in the court system including due process and being charged with the same crime twice. It also protects citizens from testifying against themselves. That means that you have the right to remain silent: the government have something to prove so you do not have to take the stead at a trial by incriminating yourself. And, therefore, you do not have to answer any questions the police give to you. So, if you want to protect yourself, you should invoke that right and the right to a lawyer. However, this Amendment (along with the 6th too) seemed to be violated and in 1966 the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that would forever change the way police interact with those accused of a crime. This case is called “Miranda v. Arizona”, in other words, petitioner against the respondent. It concerned a trial where the defendant, represented by John J. Flynn, wanted is rights to be recognised from the whole State of Arizona, which is represented by Gary K. Nelson. The Supreme Court that took care of this case was composed of the Chief Justice of the United States, Earl Warren, and eight Associates Justice. The Court held three trials in 1966: one on February 28; the other on March 1 and the last one was argued one day later, on March 2. In this article I will focus on the legal proceeding convoked on February 28, 1966, and more particularly, on attorneys’ speech. Let us take a look at the chronological facts that has Ernesto Arturo Miranda, a Mexican-American citizen, in the lead. 2. From a crime to a National issue This is the case that occurred in 1963; in Phoenix, Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was found responsible for kidnapping, rape and robbery. The police arrested him; they put him into a line-up to be identified and then began to interrogate him. After two hours spent being questioned, Miranda confessed the three crimes. But here’s the matter. They made him write his confession: he had to write down everything he was told, so that he could sign it with a kind of oath in which he stated that he understood his rights, that anything he said was going to be used against him. The confession was later used in court that convicted Ernesto Miranda of these crimes and, eventually, sentenced him to 20 to 30 years in prison. Alvin Moore, his defense attorney, appealed to the court on the concept of the 5th and 6th amendments (the latter basically gives you the right to an attorney). Long story short, Ernesto Miranda did not understand his rights, nor he was never told about these. However, the main The Duty of Clear Speech 5 MR. JUSTICE BLACK: The Fifth Amendment right, alone, not to be compelled to be a witness against himself? What does that cover? MR. JUSTICE STEWART: Is there any claim in this case that this confession was compelled was involuntary? MR. FLYNN: No, Your Honor. […] MR. JUSTICE WHITE: Do you mean that there is no question that he was not compelled to give evidence against himself? MR. FLYNN: We have raised no question that he was compelled to give this statement, in the sense that anyone forced him to do it by coercion, by threats, by promises, or compulsion of that kind. MR. JUSTICE WHITE: “Of that kind”? Was it voluntary, or wasn’t it? MR. FLYNN: Voluntary in the sense that the man, at a time without knowledge of his rights— MR. JUSTICE WHITE: Do you claim that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated? MR. FLYNN: I would say his Fifth Amendment right was violated, to the extent— MR. JUSTICE WHITE: Because he was compelled to do it? MR. FLYNN: Yes, to the extent that he was, number one, too, poor to exercise it, and number two, mentally abnormal. MR. JUSTICE WHITE: Whatever the Fifth is, you say he was compelled to do it? MR. FLYNN: I say it was taken from him at a point in time when he absolutely should have been afforded the Sixth Amendment – MR. JUSTICE WHITE: I’m talking about violating the Amendment, namely the provision that he was—to violate the Fifth Amendment right, he has to be compelled to do it, doesn’t he? MR. FLYNN: In the sense that Your Honor is presenting to me the word “compelled,” you’re correct. […] MR. JUSTICE WHITE: So he was compelled to do it, wasn’t he, according to your theory? MR. FLYNN: […] He was called upon to surrender a right that he didn’t fully realize and appreciate that he had. It was taken from him. MR. JUSTICE WHITE: But in all the circumstances—I’m just trying to find out if you claim that his Fifth Amendment rights were being violated. If they were, it must be because he was compelled to do it, under all circumstances. The first thing that may attract our curiosity is the repetition of the word “compelled”. Speaking about legal language, the use of repetition is an important feature that should not be underestimated as it provides clarity and importance to some crucial points of our speech1. In this extract we notice that Mr. White, Mr. Black and Mr. Stewart asked Mr. Flynn questions regarding whether or not the 5th Amendment was violated. More precisely, they wanted to know if Miranda had been forced, by some kind of threat, to confess his crime. If the answer had been positive, that certainly would have violated the Amendment. Indeed, we must recall that the 5th Amendment expresses that you must not be compelled by the authority to reveal the transgression you have committed. 1 Tannen, Deborah. 1987. “Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue and imagery in conversational discourse.” The Duty of Clear Speech 6 As a matter of fact, the defendant attorney stated that the defendant hadn’t been forced by the officers to self-incriminate himself. Plus, Miranda expressed voluntarily what he had done even though he wasn’t supposed to. Then, is it still a form of violation of the Amendment? Miranda was not obliged to say something nor to sign his written confession. I believe the judges kept insisting on asking almost the same question multiple times because they simply wanted to lead the attorney to reflect on the term “to be compelled”. Was it the right choice of words or was Mr. Flynn referring to another specific expression? The answer will be revealed soon. Meanwhile, I am going to analyse another few lines which refer to “sarcasm” as an unusual, yet effective, technique used in court. MR. JUSTICE WHITE: I’m talking about violating the Amendment, namely the provision that he was—to violate the Fifth Amendment right, he has to be compelled to do it, doesn’t he? MR. FLYNN: In the sense that Your Honor is presenting to me the word “compelled,” you’re correct. MR. JUSTICE BLACK: He doesn’t have to have a gun pointed at his head, does he? MR. JUSTICE WHITE: Of course he doesn’t! So he was compelled to do it, wasn’t he, according to your theory? Generally speaking, sarcasm, adopted in serious moments, is not seen as a positive thing as it does not help you make a good impression. The judges were being rather sarcastic, especially Mr. White (i.e. “of course he doesn’t”). According to Mr. Flynn, a question being asked to voluntarily blow the whistle is considered a compulsion. However, this is the situation where this type of “dark” humour is not used as an inappropriate joke but as an implicit “hint” in order to make the attorney realise his wrong choice of words. Regarding our main topic of this section, the misunderstanding will be made clear in the next extract. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN: Flynn, you would say that if the police had said to this young man, “Now you are a nice young man, and we don’t want to hurt you, and so forth; we’re your friends and if you’ll just tell us how you committed this crime, we’ll let you go home and we won’t prosecute you,” that that would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment, and that, technically speaking, would not be “compelling” him to do it. It would be an inducement, would it not? MR. FLYNN: That is correct. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN: Isn’t strictly compulsion that we have been talking about? MR. FLYNN: That certainly is not compulsion in the sense of the word, as Mr. Justice White had implied it. I think perhaps that was a bad choice of words, in context, if Your Honor please, at the time I stated them. Miranda was not compelled but induced to tell the truth that went against him. However, this is still a violation of the 5th amendment. The Duty of Clear Speech 7 Inducement is a compulsion and was brought in that category, and therefore it violated the Amendment against being compelled to give evidence against yourself. MR. JUSTICE BLACK Another thing that I noticed is that Mr. Flynn’s answers are very often interrupted by the judges because of their irrelevance.2 4. Mr Flynn v. Mr Nelson We are almost at the end of the essay, so as icing on the cake, I have decided to bring out another topic regarding both attorneys’ linguistic choices. I will be using a website3 that will help me find the most used words in a document. Figure 1 shows the keyword cloud of the defense attorney, Mr. Flynn while Figure 2 belongs to the prosecutor, Mr. Nelson. Figure 1 Keyword cloud (Flynn's speech). The first thing that jumps right out at us is the word “court” which is used 34 times. If we take the word “supreme” (11), the word “Arizona” (18) and the word “State” (18), we will get the term “Supreme Court of the State of Arizona”. Mr. Flynn’s “speech performance” is enriched with references regarding Miranda’s first trial4. For example, that he should have been advised (8) of his rights (18) prior having a trial (10) with a counsel (22) that would have fully represented him. But instead, officers (10) started a two-hour interrogation (15) in which they elicited an oral and written confession (18). That led to a firm conviction (10), which the court’s decision (16) affirmed. He often repeated the fact that Miranda was not educated (8) enough to have knowledge (9) of the Fifth (11) Amendment (17). Plus, “Miranda” is replaced by the word “defendant” (21) and Flynn interacted with the judges by using the expression “Your Honor” (15). Mr. FLYNN: The interrogation room, described in the transcript as Interrogation Room No. 2, if Your Honor please. 2 Violation of the Maxim of Relevance by Grice, 1975. 3 https://tagcrowd.com/ 4 In 1963.