Seeking or controlling the truth? An examination of courtroom questioning practices by Canadian lawyers
The questioning practices of Canadian lawyers were examined. Courtroom examinations (N = 91) were coded for the type of utterance, the assumed purpose of the utterance, and the length of utterance. Results showed that approximately one-fifth of all utterances were classified as productive for gather...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Otros Autores: | ; ; |
| Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
2020
|
| En: |
Psychology, crime & law
Año: 2020, Volumen: 26, Número: 4, Páginas: 343-366 |
| Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Journals Online & Print: | Gargar...
|
| Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
| Palabras clave: |
| Sumario: | The questioning practices of Canadian lawyers were examined. Courtroom examinations (N = 91) were coded for the type of utterance, the assumed purpose of the utterance, and the length of utterance. Results showed that approximately one-fifth of all utterances were classified as productive for gathering reliable information (i.e. open-ended, probing); less than one percent of all utterances were open-ended. Direct examinations contained more closed yes/no, probing, and open-ended questions. Cross-examinations contained more leading and clarification questions, and opinions. Moreover, cross- (vs. direct) examinations contained more questions with a ‘challenging the witness’ purpose. The longest utterances were opinions, followed by multiple and forced-choice questions. The longest answers were in response to open-ended questions, followed by multiple and probing questions. Implications for the truth-seeking function of the judiciary are discussed. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1477-2744 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/1068316X.2019.1669595 |