2021
DOI: 10.1177/14614456211001605
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Facts into faults: The grammar of guilt in jury deliberations

Abstract: Jurors customarily do their work with very little by way of instruction from the court, other than about the law. This suggests that they enter the jury room with the relevant cognitive and interactional tools at the ready, drawn from everyday life. This paper focuses on a specific conversational device jurors use to do their work: conditional-contrastive inculpations (CCIs), whereby the defendant’s actions are compared unfavorably to what a normal, innocent person would have done, with the implication that th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 45 publications
(50 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Early studies of workplace interactions and talk in institutional settings explored how the procedures used to organize talk can be selectively implemented to accomplish the goals of that setting (e.g., Atkinson and Drew 1979;Boden and Zimmerman 1991;Drew and Heritage 1992). Current conversation analytic research on talk in a wide range of workplaces includes Asmuß (2008), Barnes (2007), Kevoe-Feldman (2018), and Vöge (2010) in business settings; Garcia (2019) and Gibson and Fox (2021) in legal settings; and Peräkylä (2019), Stivers and Timmermans (2020), and Wang (2020) in medical settings. The conversation analytic approach to the study of interaction is well-suited to the study of talk in workplace settings, including aviation (e.g., Frankel 2000;Neville 2001;2004a;2004b;2006;Arminen et al 2010;Arminen, Koskela, and Palukka 2014;Tuccio and Nevile 2017;Tuccio and Garcia 2020).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Early studies of workplace interactions and talk in institutional settings explored how the procedures used to organize talk can be selectively implemented to accomplish the goals of that setting (e.g., Atkinson and Drew 1979;Boden and Zimmerman 1991;Drew and Heritage 1992). Current conversation analytic research on talk in a wide range of workplaces includes Asmuß (2008), Barnes (2007), Kevoe-Feldman (2018), and Vöge (2010) in business settings; Garcia (2019) and Gibson and Fox (2021) in legal settings; and Peräkylä (2019), Stivers and Timmermans (2020), and Wang (2020) in medical settings. The conversation analytic approach to the study of interaction is well-suited to the study of talk in workplace settings, including aviation (e.g., Frankel 2000;Neville 2001;2004a;2004b;2006;Arminen et al 2010;Arminen, Koskela, and Palukka 2014;Tuccio and Nevile 2017;Tuccio and Garcia 2020).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%