Posts Tagged ‘National Communication Association’

Legal Communication Papers @ NCA 2012

November 22, 2012

Many papers on legal communication were presented at NCA 2012: The 98th Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, held November 15-18, 2012 in Orlando, Florida, USA. Here is a list of those I could identify. For abstracts and full text, please contact the authors. (If you know of other papers on legal communication presented at NCA 2012, please feel free to identify them in the comments to this post. Click here for the complete NCA 2012 program.)

  • Daniel Bergan and Richard T. Cole, Michigan State University: Call Your Legislator: The Impact of Citizen Contacts on Legislative Voting
  • Mike Bergmaier, Penn State University: From Miscegenation to Contemporary Marriage Equality: Marriage as a Function of Ideological State Apparatuses
  • Lacey Brown, University of West Florida, Chair: Panel: Trayvon Martin and COMMunity: Exploring the Interpretive Frames of the “Stand Your Ground” Law in Shaping 21st Century American Communities
  • Kathryn A. Cady and Kerith M. Woodyard, Northern Illinois University: All the Working Woman’s Friends: Protective Labor Legislation and the Early ERA Controversy
  • Peter Odell Campbell, Univ of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: The Abject of Community: The Majoritarian ‘Fourth Persona’ in U.S. Equality Rhetoric
  • Kelly Carr, University of Baltimore: Inventing Continuity While Enacting Change: The Supreme Court Opinion Writing Process
  • Michael S. Chouinard, Florida State University: Judge or Activist? Vaughn Walker and the Overturning of Proposition 8
  • Hayley Jeanne Cole, Univ of Missouri, Columbia: Same Sex Marriage Ads: Don’t Mention It: A Content Analysis of the No on Prop 8 Ads
  • Josh Compton and Paul Klaas, Dartmouth College: Oh, the Places Legal Rhetoric can Go: Prosecuting and Defending Characters of Dr. Seuss’s Bartholomew and the Oobleck
  • Christopher R. Darr, Indiana Univ, Kokomo, and Harry C. Strine IV, Bloomsburg University: Partisanship, Ideology and Advice and Consent: A Content Analysis of Incivility in Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings
  • Daniel Emery, University of Oklahoma: Property Crimes: Castle Laws, the 2008 Mortgage Crisis, and Privatization of Public Space
  • Jerri Faris, Purdue University: Celebrating COMMunity with Ex-prisoners: Engaged Communication Scholarship in a Reentry Court
  • Ryan P. Fuller, Univ of California, Santa Barbara: Agenda Denial Strategies in Regulating Vertical Integration: The Case of California SB 1765
  • Joshua Gonzalez, University of Iowa: Undignified: Poverty and Personhood in the 1996 Welfare Reform Debates
  • Nichola Gutgold, Penn State Univ, Lehigh Valley: The Enactment Rhetoric of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
  • Leslie J. Harris, Univ of Wisconsin, Milwaukee: Spousal Correction or Spousal Cruelty? The Rhetoric of Nineteenth-Century Domestic Violence
  • Amy Hasinoff, McGill University: Social Media and Sexuality: The Missing Discourse of Consent in New Sexting Legislation
  • Erik Jimenez, California State University, Los Angeles: Are You a Mexican? Investigating the Devastating Implications of Alabama’s Hammon-Beason (HB) 56
  • Katherine R. Knobloch, University of Washington, and John W. Gastil, Penn State University: Civic (Re)Socialization: The Educative Effects of Deliberative Participation
  • Jeff Kurr, Baylor University: President Obama’s Rhetorical Pivot in Avoiding the Detainment of Deliberation over Closing the Detention Facilities at Guantanamo Bay
  • Derek Lackaff, Elon University: Open Governance Experiments in the Icelandic Context
  • Owen H. Lynch, Southern Methodist University: Lowering the Bar or the Important Role of Humor in The Legal Community
  • Carol L. Mammel, University of the Fraser Valley: The Osoyoos Indian Band, Canadian Wildlife Service, and the Species at Risk Act: Lack of consultation, and perpetuation of underdevelopment on reserves
  • Bryan J. McCann, Wayne State Univ: Between Thugs and Innocents: Racialized Violence and the Perogative of ‘Self Defense’ in the Trayvon Martin Case
  • Robert Mills, Northwestern University: The Harmonious Vocalics of Judicial Unanimity: Authorship and Legitimacy in Cooper v. Aaron
  • Jay Reynolds Patterson, Georgia State University: Contemporary Legal Discourse and the Graeco-Roman Tradition: The 2009 OJ Simpson Kidnapping Trial
  • Carlo A. Pedrioli, Barry University: Constructing Modern-day U.S. Legal Education through Rhetoric: Langdell, Ames, and the Scholar Model of the Law Professor Persona
  • Preconference: Reading the Rhetoric of Civil Rights Sit-Ins
  • Alessandra Renzi, Ryerson University: Get Out of My Park: Occupying Discourse on Public Use
  • Robert Richards, Penn State University: Legal Narrative in the Citizens’ Panel: Identifying Theories to Explain Storytelling in a Small Group Deliberation about Ballot Initiatives
  • Brandi Dale Rogers, University of Wisconsin, Madison: Science, Law, and the Argumentative Antecedents of Fetal Personhood: A Rhetorical Analysis of Early Prenatal Torts
  • Clarke Rountree, University of Alabama, Huntsville: Reversing Course: Supreme Court Overruling in an Early Admiralty Case
  • Clariza Ruiz De Castilla, University of Texas, Austin: Citizenship in the Sunshine State: Florida News Coverage on Arizona’s SB 1070
  • Kristina Ruiz-Mesa, Univ of Colorado, Boulder: COMMunities of Practice and Discourses of a DREAM: How Congress and Fox News Represent ‘Others’ within the DREAM Act
  • Susan H. Sarapin, Troy University: Forget about It! The Ironic Effects of Instructions to Disregard Perry, Ben, Gil, and Ducky
  • Susan H. Sarapin, Troy University: Toward a Causal Explanation of ‘The CSI Effect’: Self-efficacy as Mediator between Fictional Crime-TV Exposure and Verdict Certainty
  • Joseph Sery, University of San Francisco: ‘Fruit from the Poisonous Tree’: The Rhetorical Strategy behind Mapp v. Ohio
  • Rohini Singh, Univ of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Turning the Tables: Refutation by Reversal in Clarence Darrow’s Plea for Leopold and Loeb
  • Jeff Swift, North Carolina State University: The Invisible Hand of the Speech Marketplace: The Supreme Court’s Currency Manipulation
  • Elycia M. Taylor, Catherine Knight Steele, and Emilie Lucchesi, University of Illinois, Chicago: Protective or Oppressive? Analyzing Death Penalty Framing
  • Dave Tell, University of Kansas, and Eric C. Miller, Penn State University: Rhetoric and Judicial Activism: The Case of Hillary Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
  • Mary Lynn L. Veden, Univ of Arkansas, Fayetteville: The Alchemy and Antirrhetic of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
  • Rachel Avon A. Whidden, Lake Forest College: Proving Science in Court: Vaccine Injury Payouts and the Legitimization of the MMR-Autism Connection

Legal Communication Papers @ NCA 2011

December 16, 2011

Many papers on legal communication were presented at NCA 11: The 97th Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, held November 17-20, 2011 in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. Here is a list of those I could identify. For abstracts and full text, please contact the authors. (If you know of other papers on legal communication presented at NCA 2011, please feel free to identify them in the comments to this post. Click here for the complete NCA 2011 program.)

  • Sanna Ala-Kortesmaa, University of Tampere: Professional Communication in Courtrooms: American and Finnish Listening Concepts.
  • Brita Anderson, University of Pittsburgh: The Law: Rhetorically Constructed, Aesthetic, and Sublime.
  • Jennifer Biedendorf, Penn State University: The Ratification Debate over the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Communicating International Law.
  • Peter Odell Campbell, Univ of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: The Procedural Queer: Substantive Due Process, Lawrence v. Texas, and Queer Rhetorical Futures.
  • Jane Elmes-Crahall, Wilkes University; Mark Congdon Jr., University of North Carolina, Greensboro: Words Do Matter: A Diachronic Analysis of Judicial, Legislative and Advocacy Rhetoric on Behalf of Public Support for Children with Disabilities.
  • James Farrell, University of New Hampshire: Daniel Webster for the Prosecution: The Moral Drama of the Salem Murder Trial.
  • John W. Gastil, Penn State University; Katherine Knobloch, University of Washington; Justin Reedy, University of Washington; Mark Henkels, Western Oregon University; Katherine Cramer Walsh, University of Wisconsin, Madison: Hearing a Public Voice in Micro-Level Deliberation and Macro-Level Politics: Assessing the Impact of the Citizens’ Initiative Review on the Oregon Electorate.
  • Ian E. Hill, Univ of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: ‘Preaching Dynamite’: Ironic Metaphor at the Haymarket Trial.
  • Erica Hollander, Metropolitan State College of Denver: Teaching Debate from a Courtroom Orientation.
  • Michael E. Holmes, Ball State University: Negotiating ‘Best Interest:’ The Voice of the Advocate in the Foster Care System.
  • Sharon E. Jarvis, Univ of Texas, Austin; Clariza Ruiz De Castilla, Univ of Texas, Austin: Are Latinos Citizens? Voice Given to Labels and Rights in Coverage of Arizona’s Immigration Reform Legislation.
  • James Jasinski, Univ of Puget Sound; Dustin Buehler, University of Arkansas, Fayette; Catherine Langford, Texas Tech Univ; Carlo A. Pedrioli, Barry University; Mary Lynn L. Veden; Univ of Arkansas, Fayetteville: Dissonant Voices, Democratice Choices: The Rhetoric of Apportionment in Baker v. Carr.
  • Jason Jordan, University of North Texas: De Jure Blackness: Racialization in Brown v. Board of Education.
  • Amber Kelsie, Univ of Pittsburgh: Speaking For Others: The Post-Feminist, Post-Racial Politics of Anti-Abortion Legislation.
  • Katherine Knobloch, University of Washington; John W. Gastil, Penn State University; Justin Reedy, University of Washington; Katherine Cramer Walsh, University of Wisconsin, Madison: Did They Deliberate? Applying a Theoretical Model of Democratic Deliberation to the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review.
  • Katherine Knobloch, University of Washington; Rory Raabe, University of Washington: Exploring the Effects of Deliberative Participation through Panelist Self-Reports.
  • Michael R. Kramer, Saint Mary’s College: The Utility of Law-Related Examples in Communication Education.
  • William Lewis, Drake University (Chair): Voices In, Of, and Against “The Law”: Roundtable on Alternative Pedagogies for Teaching Legal Communication as Other than Professional Preparation.
  • Nneka Logan, Georgia State University: Corporate Speech Rights and Neoliberalism: An Analysis of Supreme Court Discourse as Constitutive Rhetoric.
  • Stephen H. Macek, North Central College: The Chicago Media, the Labor Movement and the Struggle over Taft-Hartley.
  • Sara L. McKinnon, Univ of Wisconsin, Madison: Geopolitics and Human Rights Rhetoric in Recent Mexican LGBT Asylum Cases in the United States.
  • Nick Merola, Univ of Texas, Austin; Vysali Soundararajan, University of Texas, Austin: Interrupting Justice: Interruptions in Supreme Court Proceedings.
  • Eric C. Miller, Penn State University: From Dayton to Dover: The Rhetorical Evolution of American Anti-Evolutionism.
  • Ashley R. Muddiman, Univ of Texas, Austin: Hear Our Voice! Incivility(?) in the 2009 Health Care Protests.
  • Jeffrey A. Nelson, Kent State University: The Connecticut Supreme Court Decision on Same-Sex Marriage: A Departure From Disgust.
  • Elizabeth A. Petre, Southern Illinois Univ, Carbondale; James T. Petre, Southern Illinois Univ, Carbondale: ‘There Are Certain Things Only a Government Can Do’: Obama’s Rhetorical ‘Voice’ about the Role of Government in Food Regulation.
  • Stephen E. Rahko, Indiana University: Citizens United and its Discontents or Musings on a Rhetoric of Corporate Law.
  • Susan H. Sarapin, Purdue University, Emily Haas, Purdue University, Scott McWilliams PhD, Jurinex Legal Services, Rahul Mitra, Purdue University, Melanie Morgan, Purdue University: Optimizing Voices from the Witness Box: The Effects of Physician-Defendant Testimony on Findings of Nurse-Defendant Negligence in Medical Malpractice.
  • Jennifer Scarduzio, Arizona State University; Sarah J. Tracy, Arizona State University: Paradoxes, Dirty Work, and Intermediary Emotional Labor: The Emotional Work of Female Judges, Bailiffs, and Clerks.
  • Susan A. Sci, Regis University: Between French and Islamic Law: Cennet Doganay’s Embodied Argument and le Loi 2004-228.
  • Joseph Sery, Univ of Pittsburgh: Cultivating Virtue: Rhetoric, Stoic Law, and the Good Community.
  • Lindsey Shook, University of Kansas: Inventing Bracton: Questioning the Medieval Concept of Invention in Law and its Relation to ‘Voice’ in Modern Rape Myths through the Bracton Legal Treatise.
  • Kami J. Silk, Michigan State University; Samantha Nazione, Michigan State University; Lindsay Neuberger, University of Central Florida; Sandi W. Smith, Michigan State University; Charles K. Atkin, Michigan State University: The Role of Involvement, Scientific Literacy, Education, and Message Format in Influencing the Lay Public’s Regulatory Attitude about PFOA Exposure.
  • John M. Sloop, Vanderbilt University: Gender Laws: Caster Semenya and the Third World War.
  • James Smith, Univ of Missouri, Columbia: Political Blogs and the Permanent Campaign: A Functional Analysis of the Health Care Debate.
  • Zack Stiegler, Indiana Univ of Pennsylvania; Dan Sprumont, Indiana University of Pennyslvania: Mediated Voices: Framing the Net Neutrality Debate.
  • Matthew Thornton, Louisiana State University: The Case of Corrupted Coverage – Press Coverage and Framing Effects of the Citizens United Decision.
  • Robert N. Yale, Purdue University: The Influence of Narrative Believability on Juror Verdicts and Verdict Confidence: A Test of the Narrative Believability Scale (NBS-22).

Legal Communication Papers @ NCA 2010

December 23, 2010

Many papers on legal communication were presented at NCA 10: The 96th Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, held November 14-17, 2010 in San Francisco, California, USA. Here is a list of those I could identify: (If you know of others, please feel free to identify them in the comments to this post. Click here for the complete NCA 2010 program.)

Lin Allen, Chair: Panel Discussion: Building Bridges in the Legal Communication Classroom: Innovative Ideas.

Timothy Barouch, Law and the Liberal Imagination: A Renewed Call for Generic Criticism. Abstract:

This paper renews the connection between rhetorical practice and the law. It reviews the strengths of generic criticism as a discourse hermeneutic, then situates the judicial opinion in relation to the larger liberal culture of which it is a part. This approach can reveal the ways that the law provisionally resolves recurrent crises, as well as blind spots that will lead to a fresh appraisal of liberal culture’s staying power and desirability.

Jeffrey Bennett, Diabetes on Trial: Sonia Sotomayor and the Rhetoric of Recuperation. Abstract:

Sonia Sotomayor’s rise to the Supreme Court highlighted a number of troubling ideological scripts that were saturated with racism and sexism. However, one of the more quickly forgotten discourses that framed Sotomayor’s capacities to be a justice dealt explicitly with her type-one diabetes. Diagnosed as a diabetic at a young age, Sotomayor’s diabetes was initially situated as a potential roadblock to the bench. Critics argued that if her diabetes was not properly managed, it might shorten her stay on the court. This unfounded accusation that underscored a “lack of control” was sometimes articulated to her identity as a Latina woman. Nonetheless, this discourse was soon superseded by a startling reversal, wherein Sotomayor was positioned as a “super crip,” capable of managing her diabetes better than most other diabetics. In the words of one writer, “According to her doctor, she has excellent control of her diabetes, with consistent blood sugars better than 98% of diabetics.” This was seen as especially remarkable because Sotomayor grew up in a low-income home with a single mother. This about-face in the Sotomayor saga offers an illuminating case study about how diabetes is imagined in the public sphere. Diabetes is something that is either radically out of control or wholly managed and seemingly without complication. While Sotomayor is certainly a role model for people with type-one diabetes, the public coverage could also have at least one negative impact. People of color, and especially those who have little access to quality medical care, are disproportionately affect by diabetes and its devastating consequences. This paper argues that a subtle script of management underscores the coverage, forwarding the idea that people can always be more in control of their disease, regardless of the circumstances they encounter. This is a familiar script of neo-liberalism, asserting scripts of individual responsibility for managing disease, not communal narratives of systemic neglect.

Bernadette Calafell, From One Wise Latina to Another: A Performative Response to Judge Sotomayor from Within the Academy. Abstract:

This paper explores the responses to Judge Sonia Sotomayor as symptomatic of new or inferential racism and sexism, which appears to include people of color and challenges systems of power, but in actuality serves to re-center whiteness and maleness. This critique is offered in performative response to the context as well as to Sotomayor directly by locating these discourses within the academy and its hostility toward women of color in general, and Latinas in particular.

Douglas S. Campbell & William Brown, Assessing Effects of Pretrial Publicity through Agenda-Setting and Framing. Abstract:

This paper explores the influence of agenda-setting and framing on a person’s right to a fair trial. A treatment-posttest research design was employed to study the effects of news reports of a murder trial. Results indicate that both agenda-setting and framing have unique effects on perceptions of guilt based on published news reports. Implications of these findings for future research on pre-trial publicity and the right to a fair trial are discussed.

Brett Caraway, Digital Public Goods and the RIAA Litigation Campaign. Abstract:

Throughout the 20th century much creative production was organized in an industrial economy in which capital-intensive forms of production necessitated huge returns on investment. At the start of the 21st century however, new communication technologies have facilitated alternative and non-market forms of creative production. This paper investigates peer-to-peer file sharing networks and the challenge they represent to existing intellectual property regimes. The music industry’s litigation campaign against file sharers is analyzed as a response to an emerging economy of digital public goods.

Michael Chambers, Bound by No Law, No Soul, No Anything at All: Bridging Constructions of Corporate Personhood by Reformers Past and Present. Abstract:

Like reformers today, members of many late nineteenth century American social movements challenged the increasing legal, political, and economic pressures to grant corporations the rights of natural citizens. By juxtaposing late nineteenth century reformers’ constructions of corporate personhood with those of contemporary reformers, this study examines the rhetorical strategies they used to (re)constitute “corporate persons” as pathological actors that corrupt the proper application of constitutionally guaranteed rights and privileges.

Christopher Darr, Media Reports, Hostile Witnesses, and Accusations: Tactics of Incivility in Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings. Abstract:

This paper investigates three tactics that contribute to incivility in Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings: “secondary incivility,” wherein Senators introduce uncivil quotes and other material from media and other outside sources; “tertiary incivility,” where Senators invite hostile witnesses who then attack nominees in their stead; and accusations of incivility, which serve to shift the focus of debates from the nominee to the process itself.

Carolyn Day, Verbal Space-as-Text: A Performative Examination of Discourse at the Cross-roads of the Family Law Court System. Abstract:

Presenting an interweaving example of the discursive hierarchical and hegemonic power constructs that are typically prevalent within family law cases, this performative narrative presents a ‘verbal space-as-text’ framework highlighting the complexities of power relations, social conventions and immigration, while challenging traditional beliefs and assumptions about the norms of marriage and divorce.

Darrel Enck-Wanzer, ¡Yo Soy Boricua, Pa’Que Tu Lo Sepas! Or, Racial Neoliberalism and the Public Controversy Surrounding Sonja Sotomayor. Abstract:

This essay reads the public controversy surrounding Sonja Sotomayor’s nomination and confirmation to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Central to this controversy was a conservative oppositional reading of Sotomayor’s 2001 Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. Taking one sentence in her speech—“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life”—out of context and arguing it was proof of both her judicial activism and her racist beliefs, conservative commentators reinforced two hegemonic projects that work in tandem with one another. First, those opposed to Sotomayor reinforce what Pierre Schlag calls a “grid aesthetic” of American law, where “law is etched in stone” and there is little room for interpretation outside of the “bright-line rules” inscribed in the law. Second, Sotomayor’s opponents advance an antiracialism (where the very mention of race is tantamount to racism), which is central to what scholars like David Theo Goldberg call the hegemonic neoliberal racial project. In this case, the grid aesthetic and the racial neoliberalism work together to craft Sotomayor as a racist liberal activist judge. And in response, both she and President Barack Obama apologized for her remarks, the controversy subsided, and Sotomayor was confirmed to the Supreme Court. In this essay, I argue that Sotomayor’s opposition and supporters (like Obama and herself) are equally culpable in reinforcing the hegemonic neoliberal racial project and further securing the notion that racial consciousness (whether expressed or attributed) is inherently racist.

Lindsey Harvell, Gwendelyn Nisbett, & Glenn Hansen, Analyzing Journalistic Approaches of Supreme Court Hearings: A Longitudinal Study. Abstract:

This study explores how coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court nominee hearings has changed throughout history. With the expectation of differences in the way the hearings were presented longitudinally, this study uses Hierarchical Linear Modeling to look at various categories regarding the presentation of each article and compares that to each hearing across time.

Lindsey Harvell, Kylie Robertson, & Gwendelyn Nisbett, Can Game-Frames be Contained? Examining the Reach of Game-Frames in Media Coverage of Supreme Court Hearings. Abstract:

This research predicts that the way the media frames the events leading up to a Supreme Court decision and immediately after the decision has shifted from a policy focus to a strategy focus.

Marouf Arif Hasian, The Media Coverage of the Munich Demjanjuk Trial, Second Generational Traumas, and the ‘Grey Zone’ of Holocaust Culpability. Abstract:

This essay investigates legal and communicative complications as reported by the national and international press of the most recent John Demjanjuk trial. For more than thirty years, authorities in Israel, Russia, the United States, the Netherlands and now Germany have claimed that Demjanjuk served as a prison guard either at the Treblinka or Sobibor death camps. Public debates over his potential culpability have raised questions of Holocaust identities, relative culpability, post-World War II justice, and generational traumas. In Demjanjuk’s recent trial in Munich, what began as a jurisprudential proceeding that would allow for the victims’ testimony of second generational witnesses has morphed into legal and public examples of what Primo Levi called the “Grey Zone,” that ambiguous region of moral culpability in which the roles of victims, perpetrators and bystanders blur. Implications of the blurring of moral clarity for American Holocaust Memory are discussed.

Kirstie Hettinga, Clouding the issue: How online newspaper user agreements and discussion guidelines blur legal rights and responsibilities. Abstract:

This research examines user agreements from the top 20 U.S. newspapers in circulation. User agreements were often buried so audiences may have difficulty finding them. Many publications also provide supplementary materials, but these usually fail to acknowledge issues of content ownership and responsibility. Typically, publications abide by a laissez faire approach to user-generated content. For users to understand the ramifications of their “click-through” consent agreements need to be more explicitly stated and displayed more prominently.

Catrin E. Johansson & Cynthia Stohl, Cultural Competence and Institutional Contradictions: The Hydropower Referendum. Abstract:

This paper explores the organizational dynamics embedded within the changing institutional context of a Swedish community. A hydropower company, trying to gain permission to extend a hydropower plant attempted a new model of action regarding relationship building and communication with the local community. Findings suggest that organizational awareness and strategy to meet new needs in the contemporary complex institutional environment are insufficient without special attention to institutional contradictions and the resultant communicative paradoxes.

Lorna Keathley & John Haas, Law Enforcement & Verbal Judo: A Tactical Communication. Abstract:

This study explored compliance-gaining messages in law enforcement contexts. The project centered on Verbal Judo, a program that emphasizes the use of communication and highlights communication tactics that affect/diminish conflict. Police officers trained in Verbal Judo participted in in-depth interviews designed to explore their percpetions of its use. The results shed light on the utility of an applied program designed to generate compliance through communication.

Daniel Linz, Bryant Paul, & Christopher Seaman, Empirical Jurisprudence Applied to Speech Regulations: A Longitudinal Investigation of the Secondary Effects of Adult Businesses in Indianapolis. Abstract:

This paper describes the use of empirical data on negative secondary effects in a hearing seeking preliminary relief enjoining Defendant, the City of Indianapolis, from enforcing its ordinance. The resulting empirical standard applied at the preliminary relief hearing directly challenges the wisdom of the “reasonably believed to relevant “ standard laid out in Renton and reiterated in Alameda Books replaces it with an empirical standard advocated by justice Souter in his dissent in Alameda Books.

John McGrath, COMM 101 Meets Product Liability Litigation. Abstract:

Largely because of product liability litigation, much attention has been given to the design and content of warning labels. Juries are asked to assess liability by determining if an injured person was adequately warned, and the warning label becomes the central focus of analysis. This paper argues that such analyses may favor the messages characteristics of a label at the expense of considering how context is relevant to our understanding of warning label effectiveness.

Bernardo Motto, Community Right to Know and Toxic Pollution: Using Environmental Risk Communication to Build Bridges Between Communication and Law. Abstract:

This paper investigates an important legislative response to more than 5,000 environmental disasters involving toxic spills in the United States between 1980 and 1985. EPCRA was the first federal law to fully embrace the community-right-to-know approach to public policy. EPCRA’s community-right-to-know-approach created opportunities for the development and application of environmental risk communication practices that have served as a model for more than 80 countries and are heralded today as the future of participatory policy making.

Jeffrey Nelson, The 2009 Iowa Supreme Court Gay Marriage Ruling: An Excision of Shame. Abstract:

In April 2009 the Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision legalizing same-sex marriage for the state.The court’s rhetoric differed radically in some key respects from the rhetoric used by Supreme Court justices dealing with the gay-marriage issue in Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut. The paper analyzes the rhetorical differences.

Lindsay Neuberger, Political Uncertainty Reduction through Information Seeking: A Test Using Online Voting Guides. Abstract:

The current research proposes a political information seeking model based on components of uncertainty reduction theory, Downs’ economic theory of democracy, and Zaller’s receive accept sample model. A mock election experimental methodology pre-tested participants before giving them access to a voting guide, and post-testing them. Some participants were given party identification cues while were not. Results indicate that uncertainty is reduced throughout mock campaigns, and participants both use and appreciate online voting guides.

David Lynn Painter & Maridith Miles, Marriage Protection Amendments and Young Citizens: Campaign Advertising and the Decision-Making Process. Abstract:

A pretest-posttest experimental design (N = 357) was used to test the effects of campaign advertisements on voting decisions and attitudes toward a ballot measure banning same-sex marriage. Results indicate there was a significant change in attitudes among those exposed to campaign messages in support of this proposition and that causal attributions of homosexuality, social control judgment index scores, and campaign message exposure were the most significant predictors of voting behavior on the ballot proposition.

Jay Reynolds Patterson, The Rhetoric of WTO Dispute Settlement: Its Role in Masking, Naturalizing, and Advancing an Americanized Narrative of Globalization. Abstract:

As an extension of the work done on globalization by Jameson , this essay argues that the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism is a rhetorical device that functions to mask and naturalize an Americanized narrative of globalization. The influence of the United States in constructing international agreements is evident in the nature of the decisions made by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), and therefore is evidence of the ideological nature of the WTO.

Justin Reedy & John Gastil, From the Secret Ballot to the Public Vote: Examining Political Discussion in Vote-by-Mail Elections. Abstract:

In American democracy, there is a tension between public political discussion and secret ballots. The rise of vote-by-mail elections, however, blends these ideals by allowing voters to discuss their views and electoral choices with others while filling out their ballots. We present results from a public opinion survey showing the prevalence of these discussions, the factors that predict engaging in them, and the effects voters may see from talking while voting absentee.

Justin Reedy, Chris Wells, & John Gastil, Media and Campaign Messages and the Emergence of Values-Based Knowledge Distortion in Initiative Elections. Abstract:

Research on motivated reasoning and political misinformation has suggested that voters can be led astray by shoddy facts and end up holding incorrect empirical beliefs. Building on this research, we present a refined theoretical model explaining how factual beliefs on political issues can be distorted by underlying values. We test this model to determine how values, political knowledge, and other factors are related to distorted empirical beliefs about ballot initiatives.

Emily Richardson, Understanding Communication in the Public Courtroom: An Ethnographic Approach. Abstract:

This study examined communication patterns that emerged in an open family violence court during protective order hearings. Through observation as a member of the public, I was able to gather data from an ethnographic lens to understand the multiple communicative events taking place in this culture. Findings shed light on the balance between professional and social exchanges in a legal context, and offer insights into communication boundaries, personas of authority, and the use of humor.

Genevieve Risner & Daniel Bergan, Selling Deliberation: The Effect of Participation Messages on Citizen’s Policy Support and External Efficacy. Abstract:

This research attempted to determine how knowledge that similar citizens participated in policymaking or elites designed a policy affect support for the policy and external efficacy. Results from a field experiment suggest who participates matters. Citizens do not want “people like them” developing policies. Also, knowing that similar others were engaged in participatory political processes does not appear to alter external efficacy. These findings pose implications for the promotion of deliberative processes.

Aimee Carrillo Rowe, Selling Sotomayor: Malinchista and the Temporality of ‘Wise Latinas’. Abstract:

The figure of La Malinche, the indigenous woman who bore Cortes’ children, animates gendered relations of Chicano/Mexicano by feminizing treachery. Alternately, Chicana feminists have reclaimed this historic “mother of the Mexican race” for her treachery and her tongue. In this presentation I read the story of Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination through the story of La Malinche to tease out the temporalities of racial, gendered, and hetero/sexual U.S. assimilation. As a speaking Latina figure, Sotomayor deploys her tongue to mark white male privilege. Thus her rhetoric potentially ruptures the developmentalist time through which her life story is narrated within mainstream popular culture. As such, I read Sotomayor’s rhetorical intervention as a moment of Latina “return”: Latinas who “fail” such tests of assimilation mark out possibilities for temporalities that work against the normalizing impulse of developmentalist time across intersecting axes of power.

William Saas, The Office of Legal Counsel: A Rhetorical History. Abstract:

Sometimes referred to as “the President’s law firm,” the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has for over 75 years played a significant role in the crafting of White House policy rhetoric. Yet the OLC remains perhaps the least well-known agency of the executive branch. Toward that end, this essay provides a rhetorical history of the OLC, explicating its “co-inventional” relationship with White House rhetoric through relevant historical and contemporary case studies.

Susan Sarapin & Glenn Sparks, The Viewing of TV Crime Drama and the ‘CSI Effect’: There’s a Verdict Hanging in the Balance. Abstract:

This study explored the relationship between TV crime-drama viewing and the tendency to acquit or convict a defendant in a murder and rape case, the “CSI effect.” Results indicated frequent exposure to TV crime drama is: (a) significantly associated with a tendency to acquit a murder defendant in a predominantly circumstantial case; (b) not associated with verdict choice in the rape case; (c) and significantly associated with an evidence-related rationale for the two verdicts.

Jennifer Scarduzio, Emotion Talk and Anger Expression: The Emotional Landscape of a Municipal Courthouse. Abstract:

The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of the emotion talk of municipal court judges as it emerges in court recordings, interviews, and observations. This piece provides a rationale for studying emotion talk and explores its intersections with power and status. The findings suggest that there are differences in the emotions that judges claim to express and the actual emotions that emerge in observations and court recordings.

Shane Semmler et al., A Content Analysis and Experimental Evaluation of 2009 Health Care Reform Policy-Campaign Advertising. Abstract:

This study content analyzed 127 health care reform policy-campaign television advertisements, and it experimentally evaluated the impact of illustrative pro and anti-reform ads during the height of the Senate health care debate. Anti-reform ads were overwhelming negative and conservative. Pro-reform ads did not differ on negativity, but they were overwhelmingly progressive. Compared to controls, both the pro and anti-reform ads elicited less support for health care reform and less faith in federal government.

Mary Lynn Veden, Taming the ‘Living Constitution’: William H. Rehnquist’s Legal Polemic and the Discursive Forms of ‘Judicial Activism’. Abstract:

Legal discourse regarding the phenomenon of “judicial activism” continues to proliferate as scrutiny is trained on the judicial system’s neutrality. Resistance to this phenomenon includes the utilization of legal polemic to distinguish prudent from imprudent standards of judgment. Features of these efforts are examined in the rhetorical strategies of William H. Rehnquist’s 1976 address “The Notion of a Living Constitution”, which attacks liberal jurisprudence with what he characterizes as liberalism’s own history.

Ben Voth, Chair: Panel Discussion: Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission: A Rhetorical Analysis.

Carolina Webber, Mediating a Wise Latina: Conforming Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Abstract:

In the wake of President Barak Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, both supporting and opposing pundits re/marked upon her ethnicity, gender, class, and even her religion to respectively support their arguments for or against her appointment. Supporting pundits evoked aspects of her identity to demonstrate her ability to lift herself up by her own bootstraps. Conversely, her opponents criticized her purposive Latina identity as evidence of her racist views. On the surface, the debates over Sotomayor’s in/eligibility were extremely polarized. A closer read of this public discourse suggests that an overarching ideology of whiteness organizes meaning across these groups/arguments by normalizing dominant identifications, preserving an extant philosophy of law—colorblind constitutionalism—and maintaining the legal system’s neutrality, objectivity, and fairness. Critical race scholars have long demonstrated the historical and contemporary ways that the legal system maintains the interests of the ruling elite—White, heterosexual, middle, and upper class men and women—by paradoxically constructing the court as neutral, objective and fair. Drawing on critical and feminist theories of race and organization, this present essay continues this conversation through a textual analysis of the media coverage of the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. This textual analysis also contributes to organizational communication research by illuminating the explicit and implicit organizing character of whiteness across two social institutions: media and the legal system.

Stacy Westerman, The Judges of Reality Courtroom Television: Guilty of Stereotype Perpetuation. Abstract:

The success and popularity of reality courtroom television following the 1996 O. J. Simpson trial necessitates examination of racial representation in such shows. This paper analyzes the stereotypic representations of race in the media through the judges in three reality courtroom television shows: Judge Hatchett, The People’s Court, and Judge Judy. Results reveal that common stereotypes of African Americans, Latinas, and older women are being perpetuated in this media genre.

Postponed: Teleconference: Schiappa on Defining Marriage in California: An Analysis of Public & Technical Argument

April 23, 2010

UPDATE: This event has been postponed. The new date has not yet been announced. Check here for news.

Professor Edward Schiappa of the University of Minnesota Department of Communication Studies will give a teleconference entitled Defining Marriage in California: An Analysis of Public & Technical Argument (scroll down for details), date TBA April 2010, as part of the National Communication Association (NCA)’s CARD Calls Series: Communication About Research and Professional Development.

Professor Schiappa’s presentation will report findings from a study of the legal and political rhetoric respecting same-sex marriage in California, and particularly concerning California’s Proposition 8 (i.e., California Constitution article 1, section 7.5 (scroll down)). This presentation follows up on the panel on this topic at the NCA 2009 Annual Convention (scroll down).

To register, or for more information, please see the NCA teleconference Website.

Proposition 8 Litigation: Information & Documents

January 9, 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has created a special Website with links to some, but not all, of the documents relating to the appeal. Click here to sign up for email alerts from the Ninth Circuit.

Information and selected key documents related to the current litigation respecting California’s Proposition 8 (i.e., California Constitution article 1, section 7.5 (scroll down)), in the case called Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. 3:09-cv-02292 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2009), are available from a special Website set up by the district court. The bench trial is scheduled to begin 11 January 2010.

The docket and full text of most, if not all, of the litigation documents, are available free of charge from Justia. HT @caminick.

Transcripts of the trial are available from American Foundation for Equal Rights (HT @chrisgeidner).

In addition, here are links to some resources available from the court’s site:

A live Twitter feed for the trial is available @FedcourtJunkie. The Twitter hashtag for the trial is #prop8.

On 13 January 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the district court’s order permitting public distribution of the trial video. Click here for full text of the U.S. Supreme Court decision, and click here for Lyle Denniston’s summary of the decision on SCOTUSblog.

In its decision, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a “stay [of] the [district] court’s January 7, 2010, order to the extent that it permits the live streaming of court proceedings to other federal courthouses.” The Supreme Court did “not address other aspects of [the district court's] order, such as those related to the broadcast of court proceedings on the Internet, as this may be premature.” The Supreme Court stated that it had limited the scope of its ruling in this way because, according to the Supreme Court, as of 13 January 2010 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had not yet approved Internet broadcast of the trial video.

Video of the trial is was supposed to be made available on YouTube starting early in the week of 11 January 2010, at the YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/usdccand , according to SCOTUSblog.

However, on 11 January 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order staying, until 4:00 p.m. (i.e., 16:00) on 13 January 2010, distribution of video of the trial outside of the courthouse where the trial is being held. That order bars distribution of the video on YouTube. If distribution of the video outside the courthouse is eventually permitted, a link to the video will be added here when it becomes available.

The Recorder has apparently new information about correspondence about the trial video, between Chief Circuit Judge Kozinski and the U.S. Judicial Conference. HT ABA Journal. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog has full text of the letters, and more details.

Proposition 8 is of particular interest to legal communication researchers, because a group of legal communication scholars have been conducting research on the debate over Proposition 8. They presented results of their research at the National Communication Association 2009 Annual Convention (scroll down). In addition, Professor Edward Schiappa of the University of Minnesota Department of Communication Studies will give a teleconference entitled Defining Marriage in California: An Analysis of Public & Technical Argument (scroll down for details), on 12 April 2010, as part of the National Communication Association (NCA)’s CARD Calls Series: Communication About Research and Professional Development.

[NOTE: This was was last updated on 17 August 2010.]

[NOTE: Updated on 20 January 2010 to link to transcripts of the trial from American Foundation for Equal Rights (HT @chrisgeidner). Updated on 13 January 2010 to link to the full text of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision barring distribution of the trial video outside the courthouse where the trial is taking place, and to Lyle Denniston's summary of the decision at SCOTUSblog.]

[NOTE: Updated on 13 January 2010 to link to the YouTube channel, http://www.youtube.com/usdccand , where the trial video, if eventually permitted to be distributed outside the courthouse, is supposed to be available, according to SCOTUSblog ; and to the Twitter hashtag, #prop8 , for the trial. Updated on 12 January 2010 to link to full text of the AOUSC-Kozinski letters and more details about the video controversy from Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog; the docket and full text of most documents, provided free of charge by Justia; to the Twitter feed of the trial at @FedcourtJunkie , and to The Recorder's post about correspondence about the trial video, between Chief Circuit Judge Kozinski and the U.S. Judicial Conference. On 11 January 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order staying, until 4:00 p.m. (i.e., 16:00) Eastern Time on 13 January 2010, distribution of video of the trial outside of the courthouse where the trial is being held. That order bars distribution of the video on YouTube. The Court is expected to issue a final ruling on distribution of the trial video later this week. Late last week an application to forbid the videotaping of the trial was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, according to Tony Mauro of the Legal Times. The results of that application will be reported here. SCOTUSBlog has links to the application filings and is monitoring the proceedings.]

Call for Papers: NCA 2010

December 15, 2009

[NOTE: Updated on 13 February 2010 to note that the submission deadline has been extended to 19 February 2010. Updated on 29 December 2009 to correct the URLs. Updated on 24 December 2010 to link to the call for papers for the Media Ecology Program. Updated on 22 December 2009 to include NCA contact for questions about law-related proposals.]

A call for papers and panel proposals, with extended submission deadline of 19 February 2010 17 February 2010, has been issued for NCA 2010: National Communication Association 96th Annual Convention, “Building Bridges”, to be held 14-17 November 2010 in San Francisco, California, USA.

Papers are invited on legal communication topics, and many such papers will be sponsored by the NCA Communication & Law Division. For examples of previous law-related papers, please see the list of law-related papers presented at the 2009 convention.

Legal informatics scholars and legal communication scholars may also be interested in submitting to the NCA 2010 Media Ecology Program, submission deadline of 1 February 2010, which will focus on the uses of new communication technologies and challenges arising from those technologies. Please see the call for papers for the Media Ecology Program.

If you have questions concerning law-related proposals, please contact Professor Lin Allen of the University of Northern Colorado Department of Communication Studies.

If you have questions about the Media Ecology Program, please contact Professor Robert C. MacDougall of the Curry College Department of Communication.

For more information, please see the conference announcement.

Legal Information Programs at NCA 2009

November 11, 2009

Several programs on legal information, sponsored by the National Communication Association (NCA) Communication and Law Division, will be offered at the NCA 95th Annual Convention, to be held November 12-15, 2009 in Chicago, Illinois, USA:

  • Communicating and Enacting Universal Constructions of the Law, Nov. 14, 2:00 p.m.:
    • Beth Goering (Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis), Andrea Krause (Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis), What’s ‘Justice for All’? A Thematic Analysis of Legal Discourse in Popular Television Programs in the U.S. and Germany
      • Abstract: ‘“Reality” judge shows have emerged as a favorite genre of daytime television programming around the world. While these programs entertain us, they also serve a didactic function, shaping expectations about legal discourse. This project, situated at the confluence of intercultural communication, communication and the law, and media criticism, provides a comparative analysis of the values related to justice and the “rules” governing courtroom interaction presented on popular television programming in the United States and Germany.’
    • Sanna Ala-Kortesmaa (University of Tampere), Tuula Valikoski (University of Tampere), Finnish Prosecutors and Listening: Focus on Facts, Forget Emotions?
      • Abstract: ‘The reform of judicial proceedings altered the communicational role of Finnish prosecutors. Therefore this study examines what kind of meanings Finnish prosecutors perceive to be related to the concepts of listening, which have been indicated to predict the listening behavior.The study was conducted using the Listening Concepts Inventory (LCI).The participant sample consisted of 96 prosecutors. Data were analyzed using SPSS. The findings differed somewhat from the findings of previous studies using the LCI.’
    • Diana Winkelman (University of Southern California), Perelman’s Universal Audience and the International Criminal Court: A Rhetorical Analysis of US Opposition to the ICC
      • Abstract: ‘This paper examines United States congressional opposition to the International Criminal Court in 2000, using Perelman’s universal audience as an analytical framework. Globalization exposes the complexities of establishing normative standards of justice as traditionally bounded national, political and legal systems intersect and conflict with one another; meanwhile a growing global legal-public sphere continues to develop. Debates over the ICC discursively negotiate collective values, seek legitimacy, and reflexively generate international legal procedures, policies and rhetorics.’
    • Theresa Donofrio (University of Maryland), Jackson’s Moral Drama: Synecdochic Logic and Abstraction in the Opening Statement at the Nuremberg Trial
      • Abstract: ‘This paper examines Justice Robert H. Jackson’s opening statement at the Nuremberg Trial for the insight it provides into America’s understanding of World War II and its vision for a post-war order. I argue that Jackson employed a rhetoric of abstraction that encouraged the elision of the features of the trial that challenged its legitimacy, reduced individuals to emblems, and most insidiously, erased the thumbprint of American involvement on the trial.’
  • Communicative Innovations and Evolutions Concerning Law and Technology, Nov. 12, 2:00 p.m.:
    • Debra Worthington (Auburn University), Paper vs. ‘Clickers’: A Test of the Biasing Effects of Electronic Data Collection
      • Abstract: ‘Litigation consultants are increasingly turning to new technologies to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of their data collection. However, few studies have addressed the potential effect that these methods may have on how mock jurors respond to and process information. Using student-subjects, the primary goal of this study was to test for differential effects between data collection using traditional paper surveys and “Clickers” (radio frequency touch pads).’
    • Sandra Braman (University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee), Internet RFCs as Social Policy: Network Design from a Regulatory Perspective
      • Abstract: ‘Internet architecture can either support or counter laws and policy. This paper reports on research mining the Internet design discourse for ways in which technical decision-makers deal with legal and policy issues. It provides a conceptual framework for and exemplars of the variety of interactions between technical and legal decision-making and explores interactions between the discourse and the evolution of formal policy-making processes for the Internet.’
    • Renee Hobbs (Temple University), How Media Literacy Educators Understand Copyright and Fair Use
      • Abstract: ‘This paper describes the development of the Code of Best Practices for Fair Use in Media Literacy Education, which was created to articulate the consensus that exists among educators about the application of fair use to the practice of media literacy education.’
  • Contested Constructions of Constitutional Law, Nov. 12, 3:30 p.m.:
    • Joshua Gonzalez (Wake Forest University), Expressive Theories of Law: Un-Persuasive
      • Abstract: ‘This paper seeks to analyze the potential strengths and weaknesses of expressive theories of law, as well as their potential applicability to the communication discipline. Using Elizabeth Anderson and Richard Pildes’ “Expressive Theories of Law: A General Restatement” as a representative example of contemporary expressive theories, I conclude that, while useful as a means of explaining harmful expressions, the lack of an adequate account of persuasion makes expressive theories largely deficient.’
    • Kevin Garner (William Jewell College), Prairie Endres (Texas Tech University), Queering the Courts: Bisexual and Transgender Exclusion in Judicial Opinions
      • Abstract: ‘The cases of Lawrence v. Texas (1998) and Rowland v. Mad River Local School District (1984) are examined to explicate the ways in which the language of the United States court system frames sexual preference and sexual orientation in favor of heteronormativity. The language of the Supreme Court, as well as the language of local courts, excludes the sexual orientations of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender, and queer persons (GLBTQ) while giving preference to homosexual persons.’
    • Christopher Seaman (University of California, Santa Barbara), The problems with Miller v. California: A theoretical examination of the assumptions of obscenity law
      • Abstract: ‘The current work is a theoretical examination of the issues in both obscenity law and its application, through the use of three communication theories: the spiral of silence, the elaboration likelihood model, and structuration theory. The overall goal is to show how each theory can reveal part of the picture of how juries come to assess community standards in obscenity trials, address the underlying problems of obscenity law, and explore potential solutions.’
  • Forensic Communication: Application of Communication Research to Courtroom Litigation, Nov. 14, 3:30 p.m.:
    • Abstract for This Program: ‘Virtually every discipline has a Forensic sub-area – forensics being the application of knowledge to courtroom litigation. We have forensic linguistics, forensic psychology, forensic anthropology, forensic entomology, and so on. Forensic communication is not a recognized sub-area of our discipline, however. Yet several scholars in the discipline perform expert-witness work applying communication research to legal issues in court. This panel presents examples in hopes of stimulating interest in a new sub-area of forensic communication.’
    • Michael Motley (University of California, Davis), Clarity and Connotations of Warning Labels and Instructions
      • Abstract: ‘Many lawsuits take this form: Someone gets hurt using a product; they sue; the defendant responds, in part, by claiming that the warning and/or instructions accompanying the product, if heeded, would have precluded the accident; and the clarity or likely interpretation of the warning or instructions becomes an issue. This talk will discuss how certain principles of semantics and communication can be applied to questions of message clarity.’
    • Debra Worthington (Auburn University), Bridging Disciplines: Psychology, Communication, and Hindsight De-biasing
      • Abstract: ‘The belief in a jury’s ability to render a fair and impartial verdict is a foundation of the judicial system. However, because the legal system asks jurors to render a verdict with knowledge of the original outcome of events, jurors can become susceptible to the human judgment phenomenon known as hindsight bias. This presentation explores the intersection of psychology and communication as it applies to this common cognitive heuristic identifying communicative strategies for reducing the bias.’
    • Charles Wesley Kim, Jr. (Yelman & Associates), Brian Spitzberg (San Diego State Univ), The Jurisprudence of Imprudent Behavior: Communication Challenges in Seeking Stalking Justice
      • Abstract: ‘Stalking is still a relatively new legal concept, and given that it often reflects an ongoing but unwanted relationship, it presents challenges in understanding how communication may be applied to its jurisprudential management. This presentation seeks to summarize three sets of work at the intersection between stalking research and applied communication. After a brief overview of basic stalking issues, including legal definitions and context, emphasis will focus on two complimentary lines of analysis. First, we examine the primary issues at stake in a stalking case, such communicating to judge and/or jury about issues such as intent, threat, pattern, coercion (i.e., the unwanted nature of the harassment), as well as the ‘reasonable person’ standard. Second, we explore potential communication strategies that perpetrators or victims may engage in that pose risks and opportunities for their courtroom outcomes, such as is implied by being a “bad witness” or failing evidence tests due to a lack of records of communication between the parties. Third, some of the more troublesome courtroom issues are explored, such as false victimization, abuse of judicial options as a means of harassment or counter-harassment, and the somewhat ironic implications of stalking as a ‘victim-defined’ crime.’
    • Frank Boster (Michigan State University), A Review of the Effect of Direct, Non-Physical Evidence on Trial Outcomes: Confessions and Eyewitness Testimony
      • Abstract: ‘There is a substantial literature examining confessions. One line of research considers their persuasive impact. Another considers the manner in which false confessions may be coerced. There is a parallel literature on the impact of eyewitness testimony. Because eyewitnesses have been found to be incorrect so frequently, the reasons for false identifications have been studied thoroughly as well. These studies are done primarily by psychologists. In this presentation I will summarize this literature with the purpose of making them familiar to communication scholars who, I believe, would have additional insights on these processes.’
    • Daniel Linz (University of California, Santa Barbara), Effects of Sexually Oriented Messages on Individuals and Communities
      • Abstract: ‘It is common these days to have legal conflicts between “adult entertainment” establishments (bookstores, dance clubs, etc.) and the communities in which the establishment wants to operate. This talk will discuss ways in which such litigation may be informed by research on the actual effects of these kinds of establishments on individuals and communities.’
  • Top Papers in Communication and the Law, Nov. 13, 5:00 p.m.:
    • Ryan Malphurs (Texas A&M University), Could You Hear Me above the Laughter? The Role of Laughter at the U.S. Supreme Court
      • Abstract: ‘This paper expands previous studies of humor at the Court by questioning the communicative function of laughter in Supreme Court oral arguments. Using observations of nearly 40 Supreme Court arguments, audio files of 71 argument cases, and 2006-2007 transcripts of Court arguments, I argue that laughter enables lawyers and justices to negotiate the complex institutional, social, and intellectual barriers, which assists in stabilizing an argument to reach an understanding and fostering change in their decision.’
    • John Reinard (California State University, Fullerton), An Experimental Study of the Use of Voir Dire Questions to Preview Case Elements and Promote Positive Attitudes Toward Defendants
      • Abstract: ‘The influence of three types of voir dire questions was examined to test effects on ratings of defendant guilt, defendant credibility, defense attorney credibility, and prosecutor credibility. Results indicated that the use of strategic voir dire questions influenced decisions and ratings of trial participants. In particular, a main effect was produced by the use of questions requesting jurors to show empathy by reciprocating positively to the defense expressions of trust in them.’
    • Jeremiah Hickey (St. John’s University), Visions of Democracy: Partisanship, Race, Self-Government, and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation
      • Abstract: ‘This paper seeks to examine how competing assumptions concerning the nature of the communication process and competing ideological interpretations of the law contribute to the enactment of constitutional law and the development of political structure that this law supports. In this paper, I examine how the Supreme Court Justices employ competing rhetorical strategies in the “analytically distinct” cases of redistricting and reapportionment law to address the issue of racial reconciliation.’
    • Jennifer Andrus (Carnegie Mellon Univ), From Event to Text: The Effects of Entextualization in/on the Excited Utterance Exception to Hearsay
      • Abstract: ‘In this paper, I argue that assumptions about language circulated in US evidence law minimize the rhetoricity of some utterance and the actual differences between texts and events (Scheppele). I analyze trial and appellate language in which the excited utterance exception to hearsay is used, to argue that such utterances are actually entextualized–made into a recognizable “excited utterance.” Further, such practices ultimately affect the agency of the speaker of the “excited utterance utterance.”’
  • What Can We Learn from the California Gay Marriage Debates?
    • Abstract for This Program: ‘This panel is the result of a research collaboration that took place in spring 2009 that compares and contrasts the legal and political arguments that took place in California in 2007/2008 that produced contrary decisions about how to define “marriage.” Two goals motivate the proposal: 1) To improve our scholarly understanding of how “reasonableness” was performed differently in the technical and public settings of the California debate; 2) To consider what role argumentation critics might play as the national debate over gay marriage continues.’
    • Justin Killian (University of Minnesota, Twin Cities), Public Arguments Supporting Proposition 8
      • Abstract: ‘This presentation reviews the four major arguments in print and video made in favor of Prop 8: Marriage is correctly defined as between a man and a woman, the people should define rather than the courts, the California Supreme Court decision will lead to bad consequences, and gay couples are already protected by California’s Domestic Partnership Act.’
    • Emily Berg (University of Minnesota, Twin Cities), How to Secularize a Religious Argument: An Examination of Selected Amici Briefs Filed in In re Marriage Cases
      • Abstract: ‘Amici Curiae briefs are an underappreciated source for understanding legal argumentation. This presentation is based on a review of all 45 amici briefs filed for In re Marriage Cases and will focus in particular on how advocates attempted to “secularized” otherwise religious arguments opposed to gay marriage in order to be “reasonable” according to the norms and practices of constitutional argument.’
    • Jon Hoffman (University of Minnesota, Twin Cities), Public Arguments Opposing Proposition 8
      • Abstract: ‘This presentation reviews the major arguments opposing Prop 8: That Prop 8 is discriminatory, the Courts should decide civil rights rather than popular vote, the bad consequences predicted by proponents are not true, and marriage should be about love and commitment. Limitations of the arguments deployed by Prop 8 opponents are noted.’
    • Edward Schiappa (University of Minnesota, Twin Cities), Lost in Translation: Considering the Role of Argument Critics in the Gay Marriage Debate
      • Abstract: ‘This presentation notes the very different performances of “reasonableness” that took place in the technical sphere of constitutional argument and the public sphere of the Prop 8 debate leading up to the election. The role of argument critics as “translators” of the technical sphere is offered as an appropriate role for argument critics interested in civic engagement.’

If you know of other legal information programs at NCA 2009, please identify them in the comments.

Additional conference programs are searchable here. For more information, please see the conference Website.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 97 other followers

%d bloggers like this: