Rhetoric

Front 1

Investigative questioning

Back 1

to find out and get on record their complete story, you use the funnel sequence:
a. (1) Invite the person to narrate – “Tell us what your dispute is about”; they’ll go for a few minutes and then stop, so you need to be patient and say things like “Is there anything else?” or “Have you told me everything that’s important?” You DON’T DO THIS AT TRIAL. This is for depositions. You don’t want a witness getting on a soapbox.
b. (2) Exhaust – make sure the entire narrative potential has been exhausted.
c. (3) Specific – once the narrative is over, more to specific questions.

Front 2

Active listening

Back 2

i. by repeating back to the witness what they have said, they feel reassured that you are really hearing what they are saying.

MIght not want to use if you are dealing w/ someone who is agitated

Front 3

Active listening steps:

Back 3

(a) repeat (b) ask (c) repeat what’s added (& ask) (d) ask what to do (e) repeat (f) tell what agree (g) negotiate

Front 4

v. “I” statements

Back 4

putting the issues in terms of the effects on you, the speaker, rather than attributing wrongdoing to the listener

Front 5

Reasons people may not cooperate w/ attorney questioning

Back 5

Social resistance
Cognitive
Manifestation v. Cause

Front 6

SOcial Resistence

Back 6

i. Status incongruence: the interviewer/interviewee are different status and this creates a barrier. E.g. President Clinton and interviewer.
ii. Etiquette – it might be difficult to talk about the subject matter, e.g. sexual harassment.
iii. Hostility – e.g. the interviewer is someone who is disliked/feared

Front 7

Cognitive

Back 7

i. Goal inconsistencies - subject of inquiry might not want to tell all because it is inconsistent with their ultimate goal, e.g. played along with harassment initially to make it go away.
ii. Self-esteem - behavior they are being asked about may be demeaning.
iii. Repression – (not common) person has tried to put the memory out of their mind; may occur at an unconscious level
iv. Perceived irrelevance – interviewee may have important information but not disclose it because they thought it didn’t matter
v. Memory – often faulty, subject to change.

Front 8

manifestation v. Cause. indicators of falsehood

Back 8

i. People don’t come right out and tell you what the communication problem is. They usually try to mask the communication barrier.
ii. Story theory helps determine/identify resistance.
iii. Falsehood from truth-tellers can occur also. Suggestion can be one source of error. Confabulation – information that has surfaced since the event, but the person retroactively “remembers” it from the event. Memory hardening – people become more determined of the truth of the observation.
iv. Demeanor is the worst method you can use to detect truth telling; people are often legitimately nervous which is easily mistaken for lying.

Front 9

OVercoming barriers to communicaton

Back 9

1. communicate expectation that person will be forthcoming
2. AUthority and conformity
3. empathy and dissonance reduction
4. motivational statments
5. confidentiality
6. Timing and small steps
7. COnfrontatoin

Front 10

Authority of conformity

Back 10

mimic Milgram’s experimenter saying “The experiment requires that you continue”

Front 11

Empathy and dissonance reduction

Back 11

tell the witness that you sympathize and give them a good reason to tell their story honestly. Questioning a murder suspect you blame the victim to get them to talk.

Front 12

Motivational statments

Back 12

Tell them to keep going, they are helping

Front 13

Confidentiality

Back 13

be careful

Front 14

confrontation

Back 14

Clarification: ask to explain inconsistencies
Role play: use hypos to raise contradictions. Takes focus off you not believing them e.g. I can't tell the jury without you clarifying
Direct confrontation: sometimes you just have to call them a liar