Advertisement

Human Studies

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 285–318 | Cite as

Closure and disclosure in pre-trial argument

  • Michael E. Lynch
Article

Keywords

Political Philosophy Modern Philosophy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alschuler, A. The defense attorney's role in plea bargaining.The Yale Law Journal, 1975,84, (6) May.Google Scholar
  2. American Bar Association.Standards relating to pleas of guilty (Report of the Project on Standards for Criminal Justice). Chicago IL: American Bar Association, 1968.Google Scholar
  3. American Bar Association.Standards relating to discovery and procedures before trial. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson, J. M. and Drew, P.Order in court. London: MacMillan, 1979.Google Scholar
  5. Bales, D. Memorandum to all Crown Attorneys: principles applicable to plea discussions. Toronto: Office of Attorney General, June 30, 1972.Google Scholar
  6. Blumberg, A. The practice of law as a confidence game. In W. Aubert (Ed.),The sociology of law. Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1969.Google Scholar
  7. Branson, C. O. D. Discovery and criminal proceedings.Criminal Law Quarterly, 1975,17, 24–30.Google Scholar
  8. Burke, K.A rhetoric of motives. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  9. Cassells, J. et al. Criminal procedure: Discovery; comments on the working paper no. 4, of the Law Reform Commission of Canada,Ottawa Law Review, 1975,7, 281–300.Google Scholar
  10. Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto.A longitudinal study of the cumulative effects of discretionary decisions in the criminal justice system. A research proposal to the Canada Council, 1976.Google Scholar
  11. Choate, C.Discovery in Canada: Being a compilation of the Canadian case law on examination for discovery, production of documents, interrogatories, physical examination and inspection of property. Toronto: Carswell, 1977.Google Scholar
  12. Cicourel, A.The social organization of juvenile justice. New York: Wiley, 1968.Google Scholar
  13. Drew, P. Accusations: The occasioned use of members' knowledge of ‘religious geography’ in describing events.Sociology, January 1978,12(1).Google Scholar
  14. Ferguson, G. The role of the judge in plea bargaining.Criminal Law Quarterly, 1972,15, 26–51.Google Scholar
  15. Ferguson, G., & Roberts, D. Plea bargaining: Directions for Canadian reform.The Canadian Bar Review, December 1974,LII(4).Google Scholar
  16. Garfinkel, H.Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1967.Google Scholar
  17. Garfinkel, H. (Ed.).A manual for the study of naturally organized ordinary activities. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, forthcoming, 1983.Google Scholar
  18. Garfinkel, H. (Ed.).Recurrent themes in the study of naturally organized ordinary activities: Part 1 of an exercise to aid the study of lecturing as naturally organized ordinary activities, 1976 (excerpts from Vol. I). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, forthcoming 1983.Google Scholar
  19. Glaser, W.Pretrial discovery and the adversary system. New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 1968.Google Scholar
  20. Goodwin, M.Exposed disagreement. Paper presented at the American Anthropological Association Annual Meetings, Los Angeles, November 1978.Google Scholar
  21. Goodwin, C.Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  22. Habermas, J. Towards a theory of communicative competence. In H.P. Dreitzel (Ed.),Recent sociology No.2. New York: Macmillan, 1972.Google Scholar
  23. Harvey, R. Is discovery really necessary and can trials be shortened?Advocate, 1964,22, 223.Google Scholar
  24. Hooper, A. Discovery in criminal cases.Canadian Bar Review 1972,50, 445–485.Google Scholar
  25. Law Reform Commission of Canada.Study report: Discovery in criminal cases. Ottawa: Information Canada, 1974.Google Scholar
  26. Lynch, M.Discovery and argument in “plea bargaining” sessions, part 1: the topicality of “plea bargaining.” Unpublished paper, Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto, 1979. (a)Google Scholar
  27. Lynch, M.Preliminary notes on judges' work: the judge as a constituent of courtroom “hearings.” Unpublished paper, Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto, 1979. (b)Google Scholar
  28. Lynch, M.Art and artefacts in laboratory science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, in press, 1983.Google Scholar
  29. MacIsaac, R. Some notes on examination for discovery.Canadian Bar Journal, 1967,10, 224.Google Scholar
  30. Martin's annual criminal code 1976. Annotations by Ian Cartwright. Agincourt, Ontario: Canada Law Book, 1976.Google Scholar
  31. Mather, L. Some determinants of the method of case dispositions: decision making by public defeners in Los Angeles.Law and Society Review, 1973,8(2), 187–216.Google Scholar
  32. Maynard, D. Proposal sequences in plea bargaining.Human Studies, 1982,5(4),Google Scholar
  33. McIntosh, J., Pre-trial disclosure of statements given by Crown witnesses.Chitty's Law Journal, 1973,21, 253–256.Google Scholar
  34. Newman, D.Conviction: The determination of guilt or innocence without a trial. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Company, 1966.Google Scholar
  35. Ong, W.Rhehetoric, romance and technology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  36. Pollner, M. Mundane reasoning.Philosophy of Social Sciences, 1974,4.Google Scholar
  37. Pomerantz, A.Second assessments: A study of some features of agreements/disagreements. Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine, 1975.Google Scholar
  38. Pomerantz, A. Attributions of responsibility: Blamings.Sociology, 1978,12(1), 115–120.Google Scholar
  39. Robillard, A.Order of the selfsame and hermeneutical aspects of decision making in judicial hearings of petitions for involuntary mental health care hospitalization. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1974.Google Scholar
  40. Sacks, H.Notebooks and transcribed lectures. University of California, Irvine, and UCLA, 1965–75.Google Scholar
  41. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation.Language, 1974,50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar
  42. Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In N. Avison & R. Wilson (Eds.),Ethnomethodology, labelling theory and deviant behavior. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974.Google Scholar
  43. Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation.Language, 1977,53(2), 361–382.Google Scholar
  44. Sudnow, D. Normal crimes: sociological features of the penal code in a public defender office.Social Problems, 1965,12, 255–276.Google Scholar
  45. Toulmin, S.The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  46. Utz, P.Settling the facts. Lexington, MA: D.C. Health, 1978.Google Scholar
  47. Walsh, H. Discovery in the criminal process.Studies in criminal law and procedure: Addresses delivered at a seminar conducted by the Canadian Bar Association, Queen Elizabeth Hotel, Montreal, August 26, 1972. Toronto: Canada Law Book, 1973.Google Scholar
  48. Wilkins, J. Discovery.Criminal Law Quarterly, 1976,18, 355–373.Google Scholar
  49. Wilkins, J., & Rae, B.R. vs. McGhee. Unpublished paper, Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto, 1979.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ablex Publishing Corporation 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael E. Lynch
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of CaliforniaLos Angeles

Personalised recommendations