1. Forensic rhetorical situation 2. Backstage forensic discourse 3. Forensic narrative

Question 1

Define: Forensic rhetorical situation

Answer 1

• A type of rhetorical situation that stems from Bitzer’s concept
• A context that calls on the rhetor/speaker to create rhetorical discourse
• Made up of 3 elements

Question 2

Source: Forensic rhetorical situation

Answer 2

1968, p.3 Bitzer

Question 3

Key elements: Forensic rhetorical situation

Answer 3

• The issue aka exigence: a wrong that needs to be remedied
  Prosecution view: crime needs punishing
  Defence view: unfair accusation needs to be dropped
  Legal view: dispute to be settled
• The rhetorical audience: legal decision makers
  Judge
  Jury
  Appeals judges
• The set of constraints: the law, rules of evidence, culture etc.

Question 4

Critique: Forensic rhetorical situation

Answer 4

• Vatz 1967
• Rhetorical situations not always given but can be constructed
• Can this be applied to forensic rhetorical situation?

Question 5

Significance: Forensic rhetorical situation

Answer 5

• Dynamic tool for identifying and distinguishing between varied contexts of forensic persuasion

Question 6

Define: Backstage forensic discourse

Answer 6

• Stems from Goffman’s backstage discourse concept (1959, HE DIDN’T COIN TERM)
• Discourse that occurs without a legal audience (eg. plea bargaining)
• Speakers can stray from their public character into collaborative roles (eg. defence and prosecuting lawyers bargaining)
• Contrasts strongly with frontstage discourse with a public audience

Question 7

Source: Backstage forensic discourse

Answer 7

Goffman frontstage and backstage discourse concept 1959

Question 8

Key elements: Backstage forensic discourse

Answer 8

• Legal jargon eg. criminal codes that make up laws (647F US jurisdiction)
• Slang, humour or colloquial language eg. ‘oughta’, ‘dandy’, ‘all that sorta stuff’
• Fillers: often more spontaneous than frontstage
• Sarcasm between speakers as they share common knowledge eg. defence lawyer being sarcastic about what has happened in order to get their point across indirectly “accidentally”

Question 9

Critique: Backstage forensic discourse

Answer 9

• Can discourse always be seen in terms of performance?

Question 10

Significance: Backstage forensic discourse

Answer 10

Power:
Does your power increase as there are less constraints, eg. ability to express your own views more freely/argue your point?

Voice:
Does ability to have your voice heard improve backstage eg. stray from public ideologies?

Lay voice lost as they do not have as much power/understand legal jargon?

Ideology:
You can express your own ideas (as in power and voice) in terms of appropriate crime control as you’re not in public setting?

Question 11

Definition: Forensic narrative

Answer 11

Narrative: an observed series of non-arbitrarily linked events (Toolan 2001. p.6)

• Serves a forensic rhetorical goal eg. prosecution to persuade jury the defendant is guilty

Question 12

Source: Forensic narrative

Answer 12

Herman 2009

• Work on distinctive features of narrative (NOT FORENSIC SPECIFICALLY)
• Applied to the forensic context by Heffer 2013a

Question 13

Key features: Forensic narrative

Answer 13

1. Regulated:
   Form and context of story are restricted by the law and legal procedures
   eg. witness can tell narrative only when given opportunity to and should fit questions being asked
2. Evidential:
   Story needs to be verified so the elements need to be supported by evidence
   eg. evidence that speaker was present at scene of crime they are narrating
3. Adversarial:
   Story is part of dispute so must take opposition’s account into consideration
   eg. defendants story set to disprove the prosecution’s claims
4. Persuasive:
   Story’s purpose is to convince fact-finder of guilt/innocence of the defendant
   eg. Highlight the criminal act and negative characteristics of defendant to persuade guilt
5. Chronological:
   Events are arranged according to how they are perceived
   eg. Defendant and prosecution may order them differently, indicating discrepancies in their narratives

Question 14

Critique: Forensic narrative

Answer 14

Is it a form of narrative in it’s own right or simply a context of narrative?

Question 15

Significance: Forensic narrative

Answer 15

In forensic contexts it is the principal means for conveying voice and persuasion, however it is heavily constrained as noted by the key elements.

Eg. Quality of forensic narrative could be difference between guilty and innocent verdicts