Communication in the Justice System

Communication 4220 Section 001

Spring 2014

Instructor: Dr. Karen Tracy / Classroom: Hellems 181
Office: 96 Hellems / Class time: Mon. & Wed., 4-5:15
Phone: (303) 492-8461 / Office Hrs: Mon. & Wed. 3-4 & by appt.
E-mail: / Home page: http://comm.Colorado.edu/~tracy

Course Description

The purpose of this class is to develop students’ understanding of communicative practices and problems in the justice system. We will examine communication-sensitive actions in the judicial system—in the courts, in policing, and corrections. In the seminar we will discuss emotion labor by judges, 9-1-1 operators, and corrections staff; questioning strategies during interrogations, trials, and appeals; negotiating practices in plea bargaining and in crisis/hostage situations; storytelling and deliberation in small claims court and in juries; and the management of face in community policing and during crisis standoffs. We will examine the structure of a typical trial, how media technologies are changing what happens, and consider the alternative dispute resolution processes of mediation and restorative justice. Our class goal is to understand how the justice system uses different forms of communication and to consider how the content and design of communicative practices affect the delivery of justice, both in desired and problematic ways. An especially important part of this class is the fieldwork component. In addition to visits from experts and several short field observations, you and several students will select a site to observe for 6-8 hours. A final presentation will be given based on this observation.

Required Readings & Viewings:

There is no textbook for this course; reading will be journal articles and book chapters, all of which will be available on D2L in the readings folder identified by the week of the semester. In addition, you will be watching videos and listening to audios of actual exchanges from trials/police-citizen exchanges.

  1. Ainsworth, J. E. (2010). Curtailing coercion in police interrogation: the failed promise of Miranda v. Arizona. In A. Johnson & M. Coulthard (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 126-138). London: Routledge.
  2. Colorado Courts at a Glance. (2011). Colorado judicial branch: Office of the State Court Administrator.

3.  Feigenson, N., & Spiesel, C. (2009). Law on display: The digital transformation of legal persuasion and judgment. New York: New York University Press. [chapter 2]

4.  Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Los Angeles: Sage. [chapter 6: jury deliberation].

  1. Grebler, G. (2010). A jihadi heart and mind? Strategic repackaging of a possibly false confession in an anti-terrorism trial in California. In A. Johnson & M. Coulthard (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 315-332). London: Routledge.
  2. Hartnett, S. J., & Larson, D. M. (2006). "Tonight another man will die": Crime, violence, and the master tropes of contemporary arguments about the death penalty. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 3, 263-287.
  3. Heffer, C. (2010). Constructing crime stories in court. In A. Johnson & M. Coulthard (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 199-217). London: Routledge.
  4. Koschmann, M. A., & Peterson, B. L. (2013). Rethinking recidivism: A communication approach to prisoner reentry. Journal of Applied Social Sciences, 7(2), 188-207.
  5. Lilley, L. S. (1999). Opening statements: Lasting impressions. In J. Schuetz & L. Lilley (Eds.), The O. J. Simpson Trials: Rhetoric, media and the law (pp. 36-57). Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press.
  6. Menkel-Meadow, C. (2007). Restorative justice: What is it and does it work? Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences, 3, 161-187.
  7. Mertz, E. (2007). The language of law school: Learning to "think like a lawyer". New York: Oxford University Press.
  8. Nicholson, N. S. (2010). Convicted murders' allocutions or leniency pleas. In A. Johnson & M. Coulthard (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 231-248). London: Routledge.
  9. Propen, A. D., & Schuster, M. L. (2009). Understanding genre through the lens of advocacy: The rhetorical work of the victim impact statement. Written Communication, 22, 3-35.
  10. Rosulek, L. F. (2010). The creation of contrastive closing arguments. In A. Johnson & M. Coulthard (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 218-230). London: Routledge.
  11. Schuetz, J. (1999). Introduction: Telelitigation and its challenges to trial discourse. In J. Schuetz & L. S. Lilly (Eds.), The O.J. Simpson trials: rhetoric, media and the law (pp. 1-18). Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press.

16.  Schuetz, J. (2007). Communicating the law: Lessons from landmark legal cases. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. [Chapter 2: Legal Rules]

  1. Schuetz, J. (2007). Communicating the law: Lessons from landmark legal case. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. [Chapter 11: Roe v. Wade Arguments]
  2. Shooting of Trayvon Martin. (2014, January 1). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:12, January 1, 2014, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin&oldid=588692530
  3. State of Florida v. George Zimmerman. (2013, D. I. W., The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:11, January 1, 2014, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_of_Florida_v._George_Zimmerman&oldid=586566804.
  4. Sunwolf (2010) Investigating jury deliberation in a capital murder case. Small Group Research, 41, 380-385.
  1. Tracy, K. (1997). Interactional trouble in emergency service requests: A problem of frames. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30, 315-343.
  2. Tracy, K., & Parks, R. M. (2012). ‘Tough questioning" as enactment of ideology in judicial conduct: Marriage law appeals in seven US courts. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 19(1), 1-25.
  3. Tracy, S. & Tracy, K. (1998). Emotion labor at 911: A case study and theoretical critique. Journal of Applied Communication, 26, 390- 411.
  4. Vasilyeva, A. L. (in press). Mediation Discourse. In K. Tracy (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.

Required Audio & Videos

A. Available through D2L

  1. DWB Video; Driving While Black Frontline video.
  2. Ducic Trial and Jury Deliberation

3.  Irons, P., & Guitton, S. (Eds.). (1993). May it please the Court: Live recordings and transcripts of oral arguments made before the Supreme Court since 1955. New York: New Press. [Audio of Roe v. Wade]

4.  Interrogation of Michael Crowe.

B. Available Online

1. Scott v. Harris: http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/media.aspx

2. Florida v. Zimmerman (Fl v Z): http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/george-zimmerman-video-blog-archive/nYHgf/

Recommended Readings

  1. Anleu, S. R., & Mack, K. (2005). Magistrates' everyday work and emotional labour. Journal of Law and Society, 32, 590-614.
  2. Choi, C. W. & Giles, H. (2012). Intergroup messages in policing the community. In H. Giles (Ed.), The handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 264-277). New York: Routledge.
  3. Emmelman, D. S. (1996). Trial by plea bargain: Case settlement as a product of recursive decisionmaking. Law & Society Review, 30, 335- 360.

4.  Heisterkamp, B. L. (2006). Conversational displays of mediator neutrality in a court-based program. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 2051-2064.

5.  Maurantonio, N. (2012). Entangled webs: Forensic facticity and the construction of police work. Communication Review, 15, 1-20.

  1. Rogan, R. G., & Hammer, M. R. (2002). Crisis/hostage negotiations: A communication-based approach. In H. Giles (Ed.), Law enforcement, communication, and community (pp. 229-254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  2. Sunwolf. (2010). Counterfactual Thinking in the Jury Room. Small Group Research, 41(4), 474-494.
  3. Tracy, S. J. (2004). Dialectic, contradiction, or double bind & query; Analyzing and theorizing employee reactions to organizational tension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32(2), 119.

Disability Services: If you qualify for accommodations because of a disability, please submit a letter from Disability Services in a timely manner so that your needs may be addressed. Disability Services determines accommodations based on documented disabilities. Contact: 303-492-8671, Willard 322, and www.Colorado.EDU/disabilityservices.

The Honor Code. All students of the University of Colorado at Boulder are responsible for knowing and adhering to the academic integrity policy of this institution. Violations of this policy may include: cheating, plagiarism, aid of academic dishonesty, fabrication, lying, bribery, and threatening behavior. All incidents of academic misconduct shall be reported to the Honor Code Council (; 303-725-2273). Students who are found to be in violation of the academic integrity policy will be subject to both academic sanctions from the faculty member and non-academic sanctions (including but not limited to university probation, suspension, or expulsion). Other information on the Honor Code can be found at http://www.colorado.edu/policies/honor.html. Note: You are encouraged to talk with each other about homework and take-home exams; direct sharing of writing, though, is a violation of the honor code.

Seminar Assignments & Assessment

Participation: This class is a seminar. As such, the quality of our discussion depends on each of you being here, engaging with readings thoughtfully, and sharing your reactions to those readings and the in-class activites. Participation per se is not graded; however, if you are a good attendee and your verbal participation regularly aids the class in having interesting discussions, you can expect 4-8 bonus points. If you miss more than 2 classes, there will be 3 points deducted for each class missed. Being late for class or leaving early will count as a ½ absence.

Field Observations and Reports, and Reactions (120 points)

Mini-observations (50 points). Over the course of the semester there will be 2 field observation reports. The first observation will be in the courtroom (2-3 pages, 20 points); the second observation will involve a contrast between the emotion labor in a 911-police emergency center and the county jail (3-4 pages, 30 pts).

Major Observation/Group Presentation (50 points). In addition to the short field observations, each of you will do a major observation (6-8 hours) in a justice-related site. Selection of a site will be done by groups of 3-4 students, and the site will become the focus of a group presentation. Possibilities include the following: (a) each student in a group does a ride-along with a police officer for a shift, (b) a group of students collectively observes a 1-2 day trial; (c) a group of students visit a variety of centers or events of a particular type (emergency communications, victims' assistance, traffic court, jails, restraining order hearings, etc.) or (d) make a proposal that relates to the class focus and your interests. During the last week of the class, groups will make 20-30 minute presentations that weave together their experiences in the field with several readings. At the presentations, groups are expected to use PowerPoint and turn in a copy of the slides.

Oral Report (20 pts)

In addition to the readings and video-watching that we will do in common, each of you will be making a short (4-5 minute) individualized presentation. The purpose of these presentations is to deepen the class’s collective knowledge so we can have better discussions and each of you will be able to write stronger analysis papers. Oral reports will be of three types: (a) synopsis/ summary of 60 minutes of one or another segments within the 24-day trial that will be the focus of the major analysis paper; (b) overview of a recommended chapter/article, or (c) the answer to a question that arises in class discussion that needs to be researched.

Reading and Class Lecture/Discussion Assessment (200 points)

You have a choice as to how you will be assessed: (1) conventional tests or (2) write-as–you-go.

For each class reading, there will be information questions and/or a discussion/position-taking question. These questions will be posted on D-2L and are to guide you for the testing or write-as-you-go options.

Conventional tests: There will be two take-home exams, each worth 100 points. The take-home will involve 3-4 essay questions related to informational reading questions, class discussion, and lectures and you will receive the exam questions a week in advance. Each exam is to be about 10 typed pages.

Write-as-you-go: To do write-as-you-go, you would write a 1-2 page response to the discussion/information issues related to each reading. This response is to be turned in the day the reading is due. Questions will include summary of information and reaction/position-taking. These will be assessed (√, or √-,√+, 0). If you have a √ average on reading assignments, you would receive a B (85) on that exam. Each √+ above a √ average would receive a +1 (occasional +s will be given for outstanding work on position-taking questions, +2). Each √- below an overall average of √, results in a -1. Late assignments (L) will be accepted for a week but will be assessed a -3 point penalty; any missing assignment (0) receives a -5. Note, to qualify for this option you must have at least 75 points and have missed no more than 2 classes in that time period.

Papers (180 points)

Trial Analysis Paper # 1 (80 points). In light of readings, a video, and class discussion you will be asked to take and defend positions related to the Marc Ducic trial and its jury deliberation. This position paper is to be about 8 pages in length; details will be provided in class.

Trial Analysis # 2 (100 points).

Raw footage of the 24-day, 2013 trial of George Zimmerman, the Florida man accused of murdering Trayvon Martin, is available for viewing. We will use the trial as an ongoing case study in the first 2/3 of the course to consider a range of issues about communication in the justice system. Having viewed (or heard about) a good segment of what occurred during this actual trial, you will be asked to render a judgment about justice, its intersection with race, and the communicative conduct of the attorneys and witnesses. The paper will be about 10 pages in length and will draw on class readings. Specifics about the paper will be provided in class.

Final grades: Determined by point accumulation (500 points total) as follows:

A = 462 and higher C+ = 388-399

A- = 450-461 C = 362-387

C = 350-361

B+ = 438-449 D+ = 338-349

B = 412-437 D = 312-337

B- = 400-411 D- = 300-311

F = Below 300

Tentative Schedule

The schedule will be adapted to accommodate outside visitors. Modifications will be noted in class, and posted on D2L.

Topics / Assignments
Unit I: Communication in & Around Courts
Week 1 (Jan 13/15) / Course introduction
A trial
Florida v. Zimmerman (request for “motions” & behind the scenes organizing / 1/15 Read Schuetz-a
Watch: Fl v. Z: Day1, part 1
Week 2 (Jan20/22) / Justice system overview
Voir dire & your observations / 1/20: No class-Martin Luther King holiday
1/22: Mini-observation # 1 due;
Read: Colorado courts at a glance
Watch: Fl v. Z: Day 1, Parts 6 and 7
Week 3 (Jan 27/29) / Jury deliberation & consulting
Marc Ducic Trial / 1/27: Read: Gastil
1/29: Read: (a) Sunwolf-a Watch Ducic trial and jury deliberation
Week 4 (Feb3/5) / Death Penalty Cases, allocution & victim impact statements
Visitor: Magistrate and Former Deputy DA, Jamin Alabiso / 2/3: Read (1) Hartnett & Larson
(2) Nicholson
2/5: Read Propen & Schuester
Watch: Fl v. Z: TBA
Week 5 (Feb 10/12) / Opening Statements
Questioning & Testifying / 2/10: Ducic Analysis due
Watch: Fl v. Z: TBA
2/12 Read (1) Lilley and (2) Heffer
Week 6 (Feb 17/19) / Using Visuals in Trials / 2/17: Read: Goodwin & Goodwin; Watch: Fl v. Z: TBA
2/19 Read: Feigenson
Watch: Scott v. Harris
Week 7 (Feb 24/26) / Closing Arguments
Telelitigation & CSI Effect / 2/24: Read Rosulek
Watch: Fl v. Z TBA
2/26: Read Schuetz
Watch Fl v. Z: TBA
Week 8 (Mar 3/5) / March 3 no class
Law, language & identity
3/5 Law student visitors / 3/3: Take-home midterm
3/5 Read: Mertz
Week 9
(March 10/12) / Appeals Court Procedures
Roe v. Wade
Same-sex marriage / 3/10 Read: Schuetz
Listen: Irons audio
3/12 Read Tracy & Parks
Week 10 (March 17/19) / Mediation in the Courts
3/19 Visit with Legal Interpreter, Melinda Gonzalez-Hibner / 3/17 Read Vasilyeva
3/19 Trial analysis Paper #2 due
Week 11
(March 24/26) / Spring Break —Enjoy!
Unit II: Policing Issues
Week 12 (March 31/Apr 2) / Calling the Police and 9-1-1
Emergency Center & Jail Visits / 3/31 Read Tracy–a
4/2 Read Koschmann & Peterson
Week 13 (Apr 7/9) / Jail-Emergency Center Visits continued
Traffic Stops (DWB) / 4/7 Read Tracy & Tracy
4/9 Mini-observation #2 due
Watch: DWB Video
Week 14 (Apr 14/16) / Miranda
Police Interviews/Interrogations / 4/14 Read Ainsworth
4/16 Read: Rock
Watch: Interrogation of Michael Crowe
Week 15 (April 21/23 / Talking with Hostage-takers and terrorists
Restorative Justice
Visitor: Longmont RJ, Joanne Esch / 4/21 Read Grebler
4/23 Read: Menkel-Meadow
Week 16 (April 27/29 ) / Group Presentations / 4/29 Group Presentations
5/1 Group Presentations
Take-home final is due no later than Monday May 5th by noon

1