Abstract
As a linguist (or more precisely an applied sociolinguist), I am poorly qualified to review books such as this, which do not directly address language. This text is set firmly in an ethnographic sociology frame. The following review should therefore be viewed in light of the inappropriate background of the reviewer.
Chapter 1 is a careful and detailed analysis of the painstaking work involved in constructing and revising a ‘story’ as part of a case, and also of deconstructing an opposing ‘story’. I am surprised Scheffer does not reference the substantial literature on the topic, such as the well-known text by Bennett and Feldman (1981). It shows how a story is constructed and reinforced to resist challenge. Figure 5 on page 31 cleverly summarises the different points of support and challenge, and how they can be used in the construction of one side’s story, and in the deconstruction of the opposition’s story, all illustrated by a real case. Confusingly, however, the author uses the term ‘alibi’ to refer to an entire defence story, when this term refers only to being elsewhere, and not to an alternative account.
Chapter 2 is mainly a theoretical discussion of two sociological concepts – ‘event’ and ‘process’. Chapter 3 is a discussion of the role and testimony of two expert witnesses (on sleep-walking). Scheffer’s detailed description of the way in which these two experienced forensic psychiatrists avoid conflict and pre-empt the jury’s decision is illuminating. The categorisation of the ‘knowledges’ used by the experts is less so.
Chapter 4 is an interesting discussion of the ‘file’ used by lawyers for their cases. This is a little discussed topic, since legal ethnography tends to concentrate on oral interaction and permanent records. Scheffer suggests that there are two types of file that represent two styles of case-making – ‘humanistic’ and ‘instrumentalist’ (that he sees as related to masculine and feminine styles). The distinction is based on whether or not the medium, the file, dominates the lawyer–client relationship to the point where interaction becomes focused on bureaucratic record-keeping, to the detriment of the human relationship (in the linguist’s terms, to a focus on the ideational and textual rather than the interpersonal). Scheffer in fact admits that this is an over-simplification, since cases usually involve both careful documentation and a personal relationship, so the difference is one of emphasis. It may also entail the difference between Magistrates Courts, where the lawyer’s focus is mainly on the human element, and the Crown Courts, which require detailed case work.
Chapter 5 documents the interaction between a barrister’s note-taking and his oral performance in court. In particular, it shows how markings on police records of interviews can be strategic, emphasising conflicts and contradiction within and between accounts, and deleting damaging material so that it is not used. The author also shows that lawyers, rather than scripting their closing address, use notes and prompts to achieve a more spontaneous performance.
Chapter 6 looks at the semiotics of physical aspects of the court, its spatial organisation and movement, and material aspects such as witness stands and wigs. This is interesting but not original, and I am puzzled as to why the writer does not reference earlier studies such as Goodrich’s brilliant text (1988: 148–149). Scheffer also makes a case for seeing the files, the stories and the physical aspects as interacting co-producers of the trial.
Chapter 7 examines moralising in the courtroom. Again, it ignores much other literature on the topic – see ‘appraisal’ (Martin, 2000), much of Eades (2008) and the process of ‘shaming’ in Martin et al. (2009). Scheffer argues that in his Crown Court, moralising is mostly performed indirectly, and affects sentencing, particularly by mitigation.
Chapter 8 deals with precedent in the common law system, discussing how it works. Although this chapter stretches the notion of ethnography, it contributes to our understanding of case-making.
Chapter 9 theorises various notions of case-making, but moves beyond my competence in micro-sociology.
The linguist in me yearned unfairly for less jargon-laden theorising, and much more detailed analysis of the language data. It would also have been good for the author to recognise much other work that has covered the same ground. The book is at times laboured and over long, but it offers many valuable insights, and is certainly worth reading for those interested in the ethnography of the law.