Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T09:11:43.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language, Law, and Society: Policy Implications of the Kennedy Smith Rape Trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Gregory M. Matoesian
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article I examine the applied relevance of trial talk for rape shield legislation and attempts to evaluate the impact of such legal reforms. Using linguistic data from the Kennedy Smith rape trial, I argue that attempts to progressively implement rape shield have thus far failed and that research evaluating its impact has been more or less misguided because reformers and researchers have consistently failed to scrutinize empirically the interactional object to which rape shield legislation is applied: the language of evidence in testimony. Looking at the social construction of rape's legal facticity, I propose new methods of interpreting and evaluating legal reforms based on an understanding of language use and the performance of knowledge in context.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , 1995 , pp. 669 - 701
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by The Law and Society Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Research for this article was supported by the University of Illinois at Chicago Campus Research Board, the UIC Office of Social Science Research, and the UIC Institute for the Humanities. I owe a very special debt of gratitude to Lisa Frohmann for numerous conversations dealing with this topic and to Roy Black for letting me take up his holiday. I also thank Wayne Kerstetter, Mindie Lazarus-Black, and the several anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments and advice.

References

References

Adler, Suzsanna (1987) Rape on Trial. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Allison, Julie, & Wrightsman, Lawrence (1993) Rape: The Misunderstood Crime. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. Maxwell (1984) Our Master's Voices. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. Maxwell, & Drew, Paul (1979) Order in Court. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baca-Zinn, Maxine, & Eitzen, D. Stanley (1990) Diversity in American Families. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Bachman, Ronet, & Paternoster, Raymond (1993) “A Contemporary Look at the Effects of Rape Law Reform: How Far Have We Really Come?” 84 (3) J. of Criminal Law & Criminology 554.Google Scholar
Berger, Ronald, Searles, Patricia, & Neuman, W. Lawrence (1988) “The Dimensions of Rape Reform Legislation,” 22 Law & Society Rev. 329.Google Scholar
Berger, V. (1977) “Man's Trial, Woman's Tribulation: Rape Cases in the Courtroom,” 77 Columbia Law Rev. 1.Google Scholar
Bohmer, Carol (1991) “Acquaintance Rape and the Law,” in Parrot, A. & Bechhofer, L., eds., Acquaintance Rape: The Hidden Crime. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Bourque, Linda (1989) Defining Rape. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Brereton, David (1993) “Are Rape Trials Different?” Presented at Law & Society Association annual meeting, Chicago (27 May).Google Scholar
Bumiller, Kristin (1991) “Fallen Angels: The Representation of Violence against Women in Legal Culture,” in Fineman, M. & Thomadsen, N., eds., At the Boundaries of Law. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Burgess, Ann Wolbert, ed. (1985) Rape and Sexual Assault: A Research Handbook. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Chappell, Duncan, Geis, Robley, & Geis, Gilbert, eds. (1977) Forcible Rape: The Crime, the Victim, and the Offender. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Chodorow, Nancy (1978) The Reproduction of Mothering. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, K., & Schauer, N. (1977) “Michigan's Criminal Sexual Assault Law,” in Chappell et al. 1977.Google Scholar
Conley, John, & O'Barr, William (1990) Rules versus Relationships: The Ethnography of Legal Discourse. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coombs, Mary I. (1993) “Telling the Victim's Story,” 2 (2) Texas J. of Women & the Law 277.Google Scholar
de Lauretis, Teresa (1987) Technologies of Gender. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul (1985) “Analysing the Use of Language in Courtroom Interaction,” in van Dijk, T. A., ed., 3 Handbook of Discourse Analysis. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul (1990) “Strategies in the Contest between Lawyers and Witnesses in Court Examinations,” in Levi, J. N. & Walker, A. G., eds., Language in the Judicial Process. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul (1992) “Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross-Examination: The Case of a Trial for Rape,” in Drew, P. & Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, James, & Jacob, Herbert (1977) Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Estrich, Susan (1987) Real Rape. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Estrich, Susan (1992) “Palm Beach Stories,” 11 Law and Philosophy 5.Google Scholar
Finkelhor, David (1984) Child Sexual Abuse. New York: Free Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Foucault, Michel (1979) Discipline and Punish. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel (1980) Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Frohmann, Lisa (1991) “Discrediting Victims' Allegations of Sexual Assault,” 38 (2) Social Problems 213.Google Scholar
Frohmann, Lisa (1992) “Screening Sexual Assault Cases: Prosecutorial Decisions to File or Reject Rape Complaints.” Ph.D. diss., U.C.L.A. (Sociology).Google Scholar
Frohmann, Lisa, & Mertz, Elizabeth (1994) “Legal Reform and Social Construction: Violence, Gender, and the Law,” 19 Law & Social Inquiry, 829.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1967) Interaction Ritual. Garden City, NY: Anchor.Google Scholar
Goldberg-Ambrose, Carole (1992) “Unfinished Business in Rape Reform,” 48 J. of Social Issues 173.Google Scholar
Heiman, W. (1987) “Prosecuting Rape Cases: Trial Preparation and Trial Tactic Issues,” in Hazelwood, R. & Burgess, A., eds., Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Heritage, J., & Greatbatch, D. (1986) “Generating Applause: A Study of Rhetoric and Response at Party Political Conferences,” 92 American J. of Sociology 110.Google Scholar
Hester, Stephen, & Eglin, Peter (1992) A Sociology of Crime. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Holmstrom, Lynda Lytle, & Burgess, Ann Wolbert (1983) The Victim of Rape. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Holstein, James (1993) Court-ordered Insanity: Interpretative Practice and Involuntary Commitment. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.Google Scholar
Horney, Julie, & Spohn, Cassia (1991) “Rape Law Reform and Instrumental Change in Six Urban Jurisdictions,” 25 Law & Society Rev. 117.Google Scholar
Imwinkelried, Edward (1989) Evidentiary Foundations. 2d ed. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.Google Scholar
Jayyusi, Lena (1984) Categorization and the Moral Order. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
LaFree, Gary (1989) Rape and Criminal Justice. Belmont, MA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
LaFree, Gary, Reskin, B., & Visher, C. (1985) “Jurors' Responses to Victims' Behavior and Legal Issues in Sexual Assault Trials,” 32 Social Problems 389.Google Scholar
Largen, M. (1985) “The Anti-Rape Movement: Past and Present,” in Burgess 1985.Google Scholar
Largen, M. (1988) “Rape Law Reform: An Analysis,” in Burgess, A., ed., 2 Rape and Sexual Assault. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
LeGrand, C. (1977) “Rape and Rape Law: Sexism in Society and Law,” in Chappell et al. 1977.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, Catharine A. (1989) Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Maltz, M. (1994) “Deviating from the Mean: The Declining Significance of Significance,” 31 (4) J. of Research in Crime & Delinquency 434.Google Scholar
Marsh, Jeanne, Geist, Alison, & Caplan, Nathan (1982) Rape and the Limits of Law Reform. Boston: Auburn House.Google Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory M. (1993) Reproducing Rape: Domination through Talk in the Courtroom. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, Nancy A. (1994) Confronting Rape: The Feminist Anti-Rape Movement and the State. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maynard, D. (1990) “Narrative and Narrative Structure in Plea Bargaining,” in Levi, J. & Walker, A., eds., Language in the Judicial Process. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Maynard, D., & Manzo, John (1993) “On the Sociology of Justice: Theoretical Notes from an Actual Jury Deliberation,” 11(2) Sociological Theory 171.Google Scholar
McBarnett, Doreen (1984) “Victim in the Witness Box: Confronting Victimology's Stereotype,” in Chambliss, W., ed., Criminal Law in Action. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mertz, Elizabeth (1992) “Language, Law, and Social Meanings: Linguistic/Anthropological Contributions to the Study of Law,” 26 Law & Society Rev. 413.Google Scholar
O'Barr, William (1982) Linguistic Evidence. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Patton, Michael Quinn (1980) Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Phillips, Susan (1992) “Evidentiary Standards for American Trials: Just the Facts,” in Hill, J. & Irvine, J., eds., Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1988/89) “Constructing Skepticism: Four Devices Used to Engender the Audience's Skepticism,” 22 Research on Language & Social Interaction 293.Google Scholar
Rembar, Charles (1980) The Law of the Land. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Reskin, Barbara F., & Visher, Christy A. (1986) “The Impact of Evidence and Extra-legal Factors in Jurors' Decisions,” 20 Law & Society Rev. 427.Google Scholar
Rist, R. (1994) “Influencing the Policy Process with Qualitative Research,” in Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y., eds., Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Rubin, Lillian (1983) Intimate Strangers. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Russell, Diana E. H. (1975) The Politics of Rape. New York: Stein & Day.Google Scholar
Russell, Diana E. H. (1984) Sexual Exploitation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1992) 1 Lectures on Conversation. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schur, Edwin M. (1988) The Americanization of Sex. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Scully, Diana (1990) Understanding Sexual Violence. Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Silverman, David (1993) Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Smart, C. (1992) “The Woman of Legal Discourse,” 1 (1) Social & Legal Studies 29.Google Scholar
Smith, D. (1978) “K Is Mentally Ill,” 12 Sociology 23.Google Scholar
Spohn, Cassia, & Horney, Julie (1991) “‘The Law's the Law, but Fair Is Fair’: Rape Shield Laws and Officials' Assessments of Sexual History Evidence,” 29 (1) Criminology 137.Google Scholar
Spohn, Cassia, & Horney, Julie (1992) Rape Law Reform: A Grassroots Revolution and Its Impact. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchman, L., & Jordon, B. (1990) “Interactional Troubles in Face-to-Face Survey Interviews,” 85 J. of the American Statistical Association 232.Google Scholar
Swift, C. (1985) “The Prevention of Rape,” in Burgess (1985). Tannen, Deborah (1987) “Repetition in Conversation: Towards a Poetics of Talk,” 63 (3) Language 574.Google Scholar
Temkin, J. (1986) “Women, Rape and Law Reform,” in Tomaselli, S. & Porter, R., eds., Rape. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Watson, D. R. (1978) “Categorization, Authorization, and Blame Negotiation in Conversation,” 12 Sociology 105.Google Scholar
Watson, D. R. (1983) “The Presentation of Victim and Motive in Discourse: The Case of Police Interrogations and Interviews,” 8 (1–2) Victimology 31.Google Scholar
West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1993) “Power, Inequality and the Accomplishment of Gender: An Ethnomethodological View,” in England, P., ed., Theory on Gender/Feminism on Theory. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1987) “Doing Gender,” 1 (2) Gender & Society 125.Google Scholar

Case

Stephens v. Miller, (CA 7) “en banc,” No. 91–1690, 1/6/94, Criminal Law Reporter 2–2–94, 1398–1400 (1994).Google Scholar