La personnalisation des témoins lors de procès: rhétorique et ventriloquie lors des questions introductives

Article

Résumé

Lors d’un procès, les questions introductives en début d’interrogatoire peuvent aider non seulement à mettre le témoin à l’aise, mais également à le personnaliser, c’est-à-dire de le présenter sous un jour particulier, ce qui peut jouer sur sa crédibilité et l’empathie du décideur à son endroit. Cet article vise à mettre en évidence les mécanismes discursifs sous-jacents à ce processus et à illustrer empiriquement comment les réponses aux questions introductives y participent. À l’aide de l’approche ventriloque de la communication, un extrait du témoignage (les questions et réponses introductives) d’un ex-maire de la ville de Montréal à la Commission Charbonneau est analysé en profondeur. L’analyse que nous proposons contribue à mieux comprendre ce qui se joue lors d’un témoignage, celui-ci devenant, selon notre perspective, ce lieu constamment disloqué dans lequel plusieurs figures (e.g., des faits, des qualités, des principes, des valeurs et des personnes absentes) se mettent à littéralement faire des choses et dire des choses afin qu’un témoin gagne ou perde la faveur du décideur.

Keywords

ventriloquie crédibilité procès personnalisation des témoins 

Bibliographie

  1. 1.
    Andersen, Kenneth, and Theodore Clevenger. 1963. A summary of experimental research in Ethos. Speech Monographs 30(2): 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Applegate, John S. 1989. Witness preparation. Texas Law Review 68(2): 277–352.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Asch, Solomon E. 1946. Forming impression of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 41(3): 258–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bakhtine, Mikhail. 1929/1998. La Poétique de Dostoïevski. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benessaieh, Karim and Lessard, Denis. 2013. Gérald Tremblay prépare son témoignage «avec fougue». La Presse. http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/dossiers/commission-charbonneau/201304/24/01-4643940-gerald-tremblay-prepare-son-temoignage-avec-fougue.php. Accessed 23 Oct 2016.
  6. 6.
    Bonafous, Norbert. 1956. La rhétorique d’Aristote. Paris: Durand.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bond, Charles F., and Bella M. DePaulo. 2008. Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy and bias. Psychological Bulletin 134(4): 477–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burgoyne, Shirley. 1990. Direct and cross-examination. Family Advocate 12(4): 48–50.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caldwell, Harry Mitchell, L.Timothy Perrin, Richard Gabriel, and Sharon Gross. 2001. Primacy, recency, ethos, and pathos: Integrating principles of communication into the direct examination. Notre Dame Law Review 76(2): 423–517.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Camerer, Colin. 1995. Individual decision making. In The handbook of experimental economics, ed. John H. Kagel, and Alvin E. Roth, 587–703. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carrilho, Manuel Maria. 1999. Les racines de la rhétorique: L’antiquité grecque et romaine. In Histoire de la rhétorique des Grecs à nos jours, ed. Michel Meyer, 20–55. Paris: Le Livre de poche.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Caughfield, Lance E. 2001. Credibility. Litigation 27(4): 27–31.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cavalieri, Silvia. 2009. Reformulation and conflict in the witness examination: The case of public inquiries. Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 22(2): 209–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2011. In pursuit of an expert identity: A case study of experts in the historical courtroom. Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 24(4): 471–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chapuis, Laurence. 2012. Argumentation dans le discours judiciaire : Analyse linguistique des arrêts de la Cour de cassation (Doctoral dissertation). Département des langues modernes: Université de Rey Juan Carlos.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Charaudeau, Patrick. 2008. L’argumentation dans une problématique d’influence. AAD. https://aad.revues.org/193. Accessed 17 July 2017.
  17. 17.
    Commission d’enquête sur l’octroi et la gestion des contrats publics dans l’industrie de la construction. n.d. Fonctionnement. Commission d’enquête sur l’octroi et la gestion des contrats publics dans l’industrie de la construction. https://www.ceic.gouv.qc.ca/la-commission/fonctionnement.html. Accessed 23 Oct 2016.
  18. 18.
    Commission d’enquête sur l’octroi et la gestion des contrats publics dans l’industrie de la construction. n.d. Mandat. Commission d’enquête sur l’octroi et la gestion des contrats publics dans l’industrie de la construction. https://www.ceic.gouv.qc.ca/la-commission/mandat.html. Accessed 10 Oct 2015.
  19. 19.
    Commission d’enquête sur l’octroi et la gestion des contrats publics dans l’industrie de la construction. n.d. Règles de procedure. Commission d’enquête sur l’octroi et la gestion des contrats publics dans l’industrie de la construction. https://www.ceic.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/Fichiers_client/fichiers/Regles_procedures/regles%20de%20procedure_2012-09-14.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2016.
  20. 20.
    Cooren, François. 2012. Communication theory at the center: Ventriloquism and the communicative constitution of reality. Journal of Communication 62(1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cooren, François. 2013. Manières de faire parler. Interaction et ventriloquie. Lormont: Le bord de l’eau.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cooren, François. 2015. In the name of the law: Ventriloquism and juridical matters. In Latour and the passage of law, ed. K. McGee, 235–272. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cooren, François, and Sergeiy Sandler. 2014. Polyphony, ventriloquism, and constitution: In dialogue with Bakhtin. Communication Theory 24: 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Costopoulos, William. 1972. Persuasion in the courtroom. Duquesne Law Review 10(3): 384–409.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Coyle, Ian R., and Donald M. Thomson. 2014. Opening up a can of worms: How do decision-makers decide when witnesses are telling the truth?. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 21(4): 475–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    D’hondt, Sigurd. 2009. Good cops, bad cops: Intertextuality, agency, and structure in criminal trial discourse. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(3): 249–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Denault, Vincent. 2015. L’incidence de la communication non verbale lors de procès: une menace à l’intégrité du système judiciaire (Masters Thesis). Département des sciences juridique: Université du Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Denroche, G.Stephen. 1963. Leading questions. Criminal Law Quarterly 6(1): 21–26.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dow, Jamie. 2015. Passions & Persuasion in Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Drew, Paul. 1992. Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, ed. Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 470–520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ducharme, Léo, and Charles-Maxime Panaccio. 2010. L’administration de la preuve. Montréal: Wilson & Lafleur.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dupuis, Monique, and Pierre Tessier. 2015. Les qualités et les moyens de preuve. In Collection de droit 2015–2016, ed. École du Barreau du Québec, 231–244. Cowansville: Éditions Yvon Blais.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Duska, Ronald F. 2014. Why business ethics needs rhetoric: An Aristotelian perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly 24: 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Englich, Birte, Thomas Mussweiler, and Fritz Strack. 2005. The last word in court—A hidden disadvantage for the defense. Law and Human Behavior 29(6): 705–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Farmer, Chantelle, and Jeffrey Hancock. 2014. Perjury. In Encyclopedia of deception, ed. T. Levine, 753–756. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Foley, Megan. 2014. Time for epideictic. Quarterly Journal of Speech 101(1): 209–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Frost, Michael. 1994. Ethos, pathos and legal audience. Dickinson Law Review 95: 85–116.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Garrity, Paul G., and Samuel Nagler. 1982. Impeachment and rehabilitation of witnesses by evidence of character and past conduct under proposed Massachusetts rules of evidence 608 and 609. Massachusetts Law Review 67(1): 13–21.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gigerenzer, Gerd, and Wolfgang Gaissnaier. 2011. Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology 62: 451–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Goffman, Erving. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Double Day.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Goffman, Erving. 1963. Behavior in public places. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gowda, M.V.Rajeev. 1999. Heuristics, biases, and the regulation of risks. Policy Science 32: 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gumbrecht, Hans U. 2004. Production of presence: What meaning cannot convey. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Heller, Brian, and Howard C. Rubel. 1987. The use of character evidence at trial. Criminal Law Quarterly 30(3): 320–345.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Herring, Victoria L. 1975. Character and reputation evidence in Iowa. Drake Law Review 25(2): 435–464.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hillenbrand, Hyman. 1982. How to prepare witnesses for deposition. Brief 11(2): 17–24.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hobbs, Pamela. 2002. Tipping the scales of justice: Deconstructing an expert’s testimony on cross-examination. Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 15(4): 411–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kerrigan, Patricia J. 1999. Witness preparation. Texas Tech Law Review 30(4): 1367–1382.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Koriat, Asher, Sarah Lichtenstein, and Baruch Fishhoff. 1980. Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology 6(2): 107–118.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Korva, Natasha, Stephen Porter, Brian P. O’Connor, Julia Shaw, and Leanne ten Brinke. 2013. Dangerous decisions: Influence of Juror attitudes and defendant appearance on legal decision-making. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 20(3): 384–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lawson, Robert G. 1968. Order of presentations as a factor in jury persuasion. Kentucky Law Journal 56: 523–555.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lebeuf, Sophie-Hélène. 2012. Gérald Tremblay démissionne : « Un jour, justice sera rendue » . Radio-Canada. http://ici.radio-canada.ca/regions/Montreal/2012/11/05/011-gerald_tremblay-demission-maire_de_montreal.shtml. Accessed 23 Oct 2016.
  54. 54.
    Lee, Jieun. 2015. How many interpreters does it take to interpret the testimony of an expert witness? A case study of interpreter-mediated expert witness examination. Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 28(1): 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Levenson, Laurie L. 2007. Courtroom demeanor: The theater of the courtroom. Minnisota Law Review 92(3): 573–633.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Loeffler, Evan L. 2011. Credibility. GPSolo 28(5): 52–59.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Martinez, Esther Gonzalez. 2006. The interweaving of talk and text in a french criminal pretrial hearing. Research on Language and Social Interaction 39(3): 229–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Matlon, Ronald J. 1988. Communication in the legal process. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Matlon, Ronald J. 1993. Opening statements/closing arguments. San Anselma: Stuart Allen Books.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    McCormack, Krista C. 2014. Ethos, pathos, and logos: The benefits of Aristelian rhetoric in the courtroom. Washington University Jurisprudence Review 7(1): 131–155.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    McCroskey, James C., and Jason J. Teven. 1999. Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs 66(1): 90–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Messier, François. 2012. Financement illégal: Gérald Tremblay ne voulait pas le savoir. Radio-Canada.http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/societe/2012/10/30/001-dumont-temoignage-mardi.shtml. Accessed 23 Oct 2016.
  63. 63.
    Meyer, Michel. 2011. La rhétorique. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Miles, Brian. 2015. La commission Charbonneau cherche son souffle. Le Devoir. http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/430515/corruption-la-commission-charbonneau-cherche-son-souffle. Accessed 23 Oct 2016.
  65. 65.
    Miller, Norman, and Donald T. Campbell. 1959. Recency and primacy in persuasion as a function of the timing of speeches and measurements. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 59(1): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Moore, Albert. 1989. Trial by schema: Cognitive filters in the courtroom. UCLA Law Review 37: 273–340.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Murphy, Peter W. 2002. There’s no business like…? Some thoughts on the ethics of acting in the courtroom. South Texas Law Review 44(111): 117–118.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Nickerson, Raymond S. 1998. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 2(2): 175–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    O’Keefe, Daniel J. 1990. Persuasion: Theory and research. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Perrin, L.Timothy, H. Mitchell Caldwell, and Carol A. Chase. 2011. The art & science of trial advocacy. LexisNexis: Markham.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Porter, Stephen, and Leanne Ten Brinke. 2009. Dangerous decisions: A theoretical framework for understanding how judges assess credibility in the courtroom. Legal and Criminological Psychology 14(1): 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Porter, Stephen, Laura England, Marcus Juodis, Leanne ten Brinke, and Kevin Wilson. 2008. Is the face a window to the soul? Investigation of the accuracy of intuitive judgments of the trustworthyness of human faces. Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement 40(3): 171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Pyszczynski, Thomas A., and Lawrence S. Wrightsman. 1981. The effects of opening statements on Mock Jurors’ verdicts in a simulated criminal trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 11: 301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    R. c. François, [1994] 2 RCS 827, 1994 CSC 52.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    R. c. Gagnon, [2006] 1 RCS 621, 2006 CSC 17.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    R. c. Handy, 2002 CSC 56, [2002] 2 RCS 908.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    R. c. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 RCS 484, 1997 CSC 324.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Rieke, Richard D., and Randall K. Stutman. 1990. Communication in legal advocacy. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Sahm, Henry S. 1961. Demeanor evidence: Elusive and intangible imponderables. American Bar Association Journal 47(6): 580–584.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Sandler, Paul Mark, JoAnne A. Epps, and Ronald J. Waicukauski. 2010. Classical rhetoric and the modern trial lawyer. Litigation 36(2): 16–20.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Self, Charles C. 1996. Credibility. In Integrated approach to communication theory and research, ed. Don W. Stacks, and Michael B. Salwen, 421–441. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Spiecker, Shelley C., and Debra L. Worthington. 2003. The influence of opening statement/closing argument organizational strategy on juror verdict and damage awards. Law and Human Behavior 27(4): 437–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157): 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Wason, P.C. 1960. On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 12(3): 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Wason, P.C. 1968. Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 20(3): 273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Weber, Solomon W. 1960. Frequently-used provisions of the code of civil procedure. McGill Law Journal 7(1): 52–65.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Weiss, Franklin R. 1959. How the lawyer uses rhetoric. Today’s Speech 7(3): 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Wetlaufer, Gerald. 1990. Rhetoric and its denial in legal discourse. Virginia Law Review 76(8): 1545–1597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Wood, Jane L., Mark James, and Caoilte Ó. Ciardha. 2014. ‘I know how they must feel’: Empathy and judging defendants. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context 6(1): 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Wrottesley, Frederic John. 1910. The examination of witnesses in court. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de communicationUniversité de Montréal, Pavillon Marie-Victorin, FASMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Centre d’études en sciences de la communication non verbaleMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations