An important but unstudied event in US legal institutions is when judges question plaintiff and defense attorneys about the issue that brings them to an appeals hearing before a state supreme court. In this article I analyze judges' questioning during the oral argument phase of the New York Court of Appeals' hearing of Hernandez v. Robles, a case concerning whether the state was violating same-sex couples' constitutional rights by denying them access to marriage. The article's purpose is to show how the content, format, and language style of judges' questioning turns constructs the judges as persons possessing particular attitudes, judicial philosophies, political leanings, and personalities. The article provides a quantitative overview of the 186 questioning turns and analyzes the discourse in selected episodes to evidence how features of questioning generate identity inferences. The conclusion considers how the oral argument phase of Appeals Court proceedings contributes to larger discourses of the law.
Abraham, H. (1975) The Judicial Process. New York : Oxford University Press.
2.
Anderson v. King County (2006) 138 P.3d 963 (Washington Supreme Court).
3.
Atkinson, J.M. and Heritage, J. (1984) Structure of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Benoit, W. (1989) `Attorney Argumentation and Supreme Court Opinions' , Argumentation and Advocacy26: 22-38.
5.
Bergmann, J.R. (1992) `Veiled Morality: Notes on Discretion in Psychiatry' , in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, pp. 137-62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Bergmann, J.R. (1998) `Introduction: Morality in Discourse', Research on Language and Social Interaction31: 279-94.
7.
Besen, Y. and Zicklen, G. (2007) `Young Men, Religion, and Attitudes toward Homosexuality' , Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality1: 250-66.
8.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. (1987) Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Cheney, G. (2000) `Interpreting Interpretive Research: Toward Perspectivism without Relativism', in S.R. Corman and M.S. Poole (eds) Perspectives on Organization Communication: Finding Common Ground, pp. 17-45. New York: Guilford.
10.
Clayman, S. and Heritage, J. (2002) `Questioning Presidents: Journalistic Deference and Adversarialness in the Press Conferences of Eisenhower and Reagan', Journal of Communication52: 749-75.
11.
Cohen, D. (1978) `Judicial Predictability in United States Supreme Court Oral Advocacy: Analysis of the Oral Argument in TVA v. Hill', University of Puget Sound Law Review2: 89-136.
12.
Collins, P.M. (2004) `Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation', Law & Society Review38: 807-32.
13.
Comparato, S.A. (2003) Amici Curiae and Strategic Behavior in State Supreme Courts. Westport, CT: Praeger.
14.
Craig, R.T. and Tracy, K. (2005) `"The Issue" in Argumentation Practice and Theory' , in F.H. van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser (eds) The Practice of Argumentation , pp. 11-28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
15.
Dickens, M. and Schwartz, R.E. (1971) `Oral Argument before the Supreme Court: Marshall v. Davis in the School Segregation Cases', Quarterly Journal of Speech57: 32-42.
16.
Drew, P. (1992) `Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross-Examination: The Case of a Trial for Rape', in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work, pp. 470-520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior . Chicago, IL: Aldine.
18.
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003) 798 N.E.2d 941, Mass.
19.
Grisci, A. and Pontecorvo, C. (2004) `The Organization of Questions and Answers in the Thematic Phases of Hostile Examination: Turn-by-Turn Manipulation of Meaning' , Journal of Pragmatics36: 965-95.
20.
Hartocollis, A. (2006) `Highest Court in New York Confronts Gay Marriage' , New York Times, 1 June, available online at: [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/nyregion/01marriage.html?pagewanted=print ], accessed 9 February 2008.
21.
Heffer, C. (2005) The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal-Lay Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
22.
Heritage, J. (2002) `The Limits of Questioning: Negative Interrogatives and Hostile Question Content', Journal of Pragmatics34: 1427-46.
23.
Hernandez v. Robles (2006) 855 N.E. 2d 1, N.Y. Court of Appeals.
24.
Hobbs, P. (2007) `Extraterrioriality and Extralegality: The United States Supreme Court and Guantanamo Bay', Text & Talk27: 171-200.
25.
In re Marriage Cases (2008) California Supreme Court, S147999.
26.
Johnson, T.R. (2004) Oral Arguments and Decision Making on the United States Supreme Court. Albany: State University of New York.
27.
Kerrigan v. Department of Public Health (2008) SC 17716, Connecticut Supreme Court.
28.
Komter, M.L. (1994) `Accusations and Defences in Courtroom Interaction' , Discourse & Society5: 165-87.
29.
Koshik, I. (2003) `Wh-Questions Used as Challenges', Discourse Studies5: 51-77.
30.
Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1992) `Forum Introduction: Social Approaches to Interpersonal Communication', Communication Theory2: 131-8.
31.
Levison, G.L. (1979) `The Rhetoric of the Oral Argument in the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke', Western Journal of Communication43: 271-7.
32.
Lewis v. Harris (2006) 908a.2d 196, N.J. Supreme Court.
33.
McClain, L.C. (2006) `The Evolution or End of Marriage? Reflections on the Impasse over Same-Sex Marriage', Family Court Review44: 200-8.
34.
Matoesian, G.M. (1993) Reproducing Rape: Domination through Talk in the Courtroom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35.
National Conference of State Legislatures (n.d.) `Legislative Webcasts of Floor Proceedings, Committee Hearings, and Archiving of Webcasts', available online at: [http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/webcasts.htm ], accessed 9 December 2008 .
36.
Pascual, E. (2006) `Questions in Legal Monologues: Fictive Interaction as Argumentative Strategy in a Murder Trial', Text & Talk26: 382-402.
37.
Pearce, W.B. and Littlejohn, S. (1997) Moral Conflict: When Social Worlds Collide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
38.
Penman, R. (1990) `Facework and Politeness: Multiple Goals in Courtroom Discourse', Journal of Language and Social Psychology9: 15-38.
39.
Penman, R. (1991) `Goals, Games and Moral Orders: A Paradoxical Case in Court?', in K. Tracy (ed.) Understanding Face-to-Face Interaction: Issues Linking Goals and Discourse , pp. 21-42. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
Philips, S.U. (1998) Ideology in the Language of Judges: How Judges Practice Law, Politics, and Courtroom Control. New York : Oxford University Press.
41.
Pomerantz, A. (1986) `Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims', Human Studies9: 219-29.
42.
Pomerantz, A. (1988) `Offering a Candidate Answer: An Information Seeking Strategy', Communication Monographs55: 360-73.
43.
Rollins, J. (2005) `Same-Sex Unions and the Spectacles of Recognition' , Law & Society Review39: 457-83.
44.
Schaff, K. (2004) `Equal Protection and Same-Sex Marriage', Journal of Social Philosophy35: 133-47.
45.
Toobin, J. (2007) The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. New York: Doubleday.
46.
Topf, M.A. (1992) `Communicating Legitimacy in U.S. Supreme Court Opinions', Language & Communication12: 17-29.
47.
Tracy, K. (2002) Everyday Talk: Building and Reflecting Identities . New York: Guilford.
48.
Wasby, S.L., D'Amato, A.A. and Metrailer, R. (1976) `The Functions of Oral Argument in the U.S. Supreme Court', Quarterly Journal of Speech62: 410-24.
49.
Wgbh (2005) `Support for Gay Marriage', available online at: [http://www.wgbh.org/cainan/article?item_id=1484523], accessed 9 February 2008.
50.
White, J.B. (1985) Heracles' Bow: Essays on the Rhetoric and Poetics of the Law. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
51.
Woodbury, H. (1984) `The Strategic Use of Questions in Court', Semiotica48: 197-228.
