Testimony, Witnessing

Making the Sodomite Speak: Voices of the Accused in English Sodomy Trials, c.1800–981

“…10 This procedure not only placed the accused at the heart of the trial, but also, Jan-Melissa Schramm concludes, 'gave the court access to their own descriptions of their own behaviour or their intentions'. 11 Furthermore, most people relied on their own efforts because they were unable to afford lawyers to present their case. 12 However, John Langbein dates the decline of this model from the 1730s onwards, thereby gradually distancing the defendant, and implicitly the court, from the facts.…”

Sentimental Frauds

“…In that case, the utterance amounts to an affirmation about the speaker's character: by virtue of their shared reaction to the book, the participants show that they count as book club members because they have displayed the right emotional credentials. These responses do not qualify as legal testimony, but as Jan‐Melissa Schramm (2009) notes, speakers who give natural testimony before an audience may imagine that their utterance qualifies as “a species of evidence” simply because the statement has been “articulated in a public forum with a view to establishing its ‘truth’ ” (478). Because the evidence is offered before viewers who are regarded as witnesses, the legal requirements are seen as unnecessary formalities: the speaker avoids hearsay by professing her own belief; her sincerity eliminates the need for an oath; and her openness to scrutiny does the work performed by cross‐examination.…”