To grasp criminal courts as truth spots, one needs to go beyond their symbolic applications to consider their interactional and epistemic implications. In this study, the authors compare the English Crown Court, German District Court, and U.S. State Court as “places on display” and as “places denied.” These perspectives comment on the courts in light of their different interaction orders and their different positions in knowledge processes. For the latter, the authors utilize Knorr's taxonomy of laboratory—experiment relations. The article arrives at one basic distinction: the procedural replacement of trial hearings by deal-oriented plea bargaining in the U.S. context. In contrast, the English and the German courts involve a preference for trial hearings and for fully developed cases, which, however, does not forbid but encourage forms of trial-oriented plea bargain.
Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities. New York : Verso.
2.
Atkinson, J., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organization of verbal interactions in judicial settings. London: Macmillan .
3.
Atkinson, M. (1992). Displaying neutrality: Informal aspects of informal court proceedings. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 199-211). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Baum, L. (1997). The puzzle of judicial behavior. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5.
Bednarek, A. (2003). Gerichtsbauten in Schlesien 1815-1945 [Court buildings in Silesia 1815-1945]. Görlitz, Germany: Verlag Gunter Oettel.
6.
Bogoch, B. (2000). Discourse dilemmas and courtroom control: The talk of trial judges. Law and Social Inquiry. Journal of the American Bar Foundation, 25(1), 227-247.
7.
Bourdieu, P. (1987). The force of law: Toward a sociology of the judicial field. Hastings Law Journal, 38, 805-853.
8.
Carlen, P. (1976). Magistrates' justice. London : Martin Robertson.
9.
Christensen, R., & Kudlich, H. (2001). Theorie richterlichen. Begründens [A theory of judicial reasoning]. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
10.
Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
Conley, J.M., & O'Barr, W. (1990). Rules versus relations. Chicago : Chicago University Press.
12.
Damaska, M. (2003). Epistemology and legal regulation of proof. Law, Probability and Risk, 2, 117-130.
13.
Danet, B. (1984). Studies of legal discourse. Text , 4, 1-3.
14.
Derrida, J. (1999). Force of law: The "mystical foundations of authority ." Cardozo Law Review, 11, 919-1045.
15.
Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 470-521). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Drew, P. (2003). Comparative analysis of talk-in-interaction in different institutional settings: A sketch. In P. J. Glenn, C. D. LeBaron, & J. Mandelbaum (Eds.), Studies in language and social interaction: In honour of Robert Hopper (pp. 293-308). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
Ehrlich, E. (2001). Fundamental principles of the sociology of law . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.
18.
Feeley, M.M. (1992). The process is the punishment: Handling cases in a lower criminal court. New York: Russell Sage.
19.
Foucault, M. (2003). Die Wahrheit und die juristischen Formen [Truth and judicial forms]. Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp.
20.
Friedman, L.M. (2004). The day before trials vanished. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1(3), 689-703.
21.
Gieryn, T.F. (2002). Three truth spots. Journal of History of the Behavioral Sciences, 38(2), 113-132.
22.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
23.
Haldar, P. (1994). In and out of court: On topographies of law and the architecture of court buildings. International Journal for Semiotics of Law, 7(20), 185-200.
24.
Hazard, J.N. (1962). Furniture arrangement as a symbol of judicial roles. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 19(2), 181-188.
25.
Jasanoff, S. (2005). Law's knowledge: Science for justice in legal settings. American Journal of Public Health, 95(S1), S49-S58.
26.
Katz, J. (2004). On the rhetoric and politics of ethnographic methodology . Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 595, 280-308.
27.
Kennedy, J.S. (2002). Victims of crime and labelling theory: A parallel process? Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 235-265.
28.
Knorr, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures. How the sciences make knowledge . Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.
29.
Komter, M.L. (1998). Dilemmas in the courtroom: A study of trials of violent crime in the Netherlands. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
31.
Langbein, J.H. (2003). The origins of adversary criminal trial. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
32.
Luhmann, N. (1989). Legitimation durch Verfahren [Legitimation by procedure]. Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp. (Original work published 1969)
33.
Lynch, M. (1982). Closure and disclosure in pre-trial argument. Human Studies, 5, 285-318.
34.
Lynch, M., & Bogen, D. (1996). The spectacle of history. Speech, text, and memory at the Iran-Contra hearings. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
35.
Maynard, D. (1982). Aspects of sequential organization in plea bargaining discourse. Human Studies, 5, 319-344.
36.
Maynard, D.W. (1984). Inside plea bargaining. New York: Plenum.
37.
Mulcahy, L. (2006). Architects of justice: The politics of courtroom design. Reading Law School Research Seminar Series. Reading , UK: University of Reading.
38.
Perry, B.A. (2001). The Israeli and United States Supreme Courts: A comparative reflection on their symbols, images, and functions. Review of Politics, 63, 2317-339.
39.
Philips, S. (1986). Some functions of spatial positioning and alignment in the organization of courtroom discourse. In S. Fischer & A. Dundas Todd (Eds.), Discourse and institutional authority: Medicine, education and law-Advances in discourse processes (pp. 223-233). Norwood, NJ : Ablex.
40.
Pollner, M. (1974). Sociological and common sense models of the labelling process. In R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology: Selected readings (pp. 27-40). Harmondsworth , UK: Penguin.
41.
Rock, P. (1993). The social world of an English Crown Court. Witnesses and professionals in the Crown Court Centre at Wood Green. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
42.
Sacks, H. (1997). The lawyer's work. In M. Travers & J. Manzo (Eds.), Law in action: Ethnomethodological and conversation analytic approaches to law (pp. 43-49). Brookfield, VT: Ashgate. (Original work published 1964)
43.
Sarat, A., Douglas, L. , & Umphrey, M. M. (Eds.). (2007). How law knows. Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press.
44.
Scheffer, T. (2003). The duality of mobilisation. Following the rise and fall of an alibi-story on its way to court. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 33(3), 313-347.
45.
Scheffer, T. (2004). Materialities of legal proceedings. International Journal for Semiotics of Law, 17(4), 356-389.
46.
Scheffer, T. (2006a). The microformation of criminal defence: On the lawyer's notes, speech production, and the field of presence. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39(3), 303-342.
47.
Scheffer, T. (2006b). On procedural discoursivation-Or how local utterances are turned into binding facts. Language & Communication , 27, 1-27.
48.
Scheffer, T. (2007). Event and process. An exercise in analytical ethnography . Human Studies, 30(3), 167-197.
49.
Shapin, S. (1988). The house of experiment in seventeenth-century England. Isis, 79, 373-404.
50.
Stygall, G. (1994). Trial language. Differential discourse processing and discursive formation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
51.
Sudnow, D. (1965). Normal crimes. Sociological features of the penal code in a public defender office. Social Problems, 12(3), 255-276.
52.
Travers, M. (1999). The British immigration courts. A study of law and politics. Bristol, UK: Policy .
53.
Valverde, M. (2003). Law's dream of a common knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
54.
Winkel, F.W., & Vrij, A. (1998). Who is in need of victim support?: The issue of accountable, empirically validated selection and victim referral. Expert Evidence, 6, 23-41.
