Loaded Questions and Answers : Courtroom Language in the Chai Vang Murder Trial

Abstract

Research has shown that clear power structures exist in all courtrooms (Eades 2008, Gibbons, Berk-Seligson, van Dijk 2004). Not only does a person's status affect the power relationships but so too does the language used to discuss case topics. The way attorneys construct their questions, the words they choose to use, and the ordering of events, among other things, can affect the outcome of a trial. The power dynamics get even more complex when cultures collide in the courtroom. However, very little forensic linguistic analysis has been done on how the Hmong perform in the courtroom. This study analyzes Chai Soua Vang's testimony in the 2005 murder trial. Vang was convicted of shooting eight Caucasian hunters, killing six in the north woods of Wisconsin. Specifically, this study uses Critical Discourse Analysis, Conversation Analysis and pragmatics to unearth problematic areas where the attorneys used language in ways that may have made it difficult for Vang to understand and respond coherently. Quantitatively, the attorneys used question structure (type and coerciveness), number of clauses, and number of pronouns, to elicit different kinds and qualities of responses from Vang. The defense attorney typically used more open-ended questions that allowed Vang to answer with more words than the prosecuting attorney's closed-ended and declarative/tag questions. Significantly, Vang borrowed words and sentence structure from the prosecuting attorney when the question proved difficult to understand due to the lexicon or coerciveness rating. Both attorneys also used the conjunctions "and", "so", and "but" to begin questions to keep the conversation cohesive, but the prosecuting attorney used them to contradict and lead Vang. This study also analyzed the case using a qualitatively standpoint, focusing on how the attorneys constructed the narrative. The defense attorney allowed Vang to tell his story, but the prosecuting attorney used a number of strategies, such as juxtaposition, abrupt topic shifts, shifting the focus away from the events, etc., to fragment the narrative, which led to contradictions and language struggles in Vang's responses. The study concludes that the prosecuting attorney used question and narrative structures that made it difficult for Vang to respond clearly and concisely. This does not mean he received an unfair trial. It only functions as a reminder that the justice system must be vigilant in its pursuit of justice and pay attention to how it allocates power, especially when cultures collide in the courtroom. Status differences and language ability should not be the difference in a conviction.