‘A shifting precipice of unsettled law’?
A survey of how US courts treat expert testimony using forensic stylistics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.23788Keywords:
language and law, forensic linguistics, authorship analysis, authorship attribution, forensic stylisticsAbstract
This paper provides an up-to-date summary of how the US legal system treats evidence that uses the forensic stylistics method of authorship attribution analysis. Many scholars in both law and linguistics have written about some of the more notable cases on this issue, but none have attempted to trace the entire line of relevant case law since the advent of modern forensic stylistics, and relatively few summaries of any case law have appeared in the last ten years. It is hoped that a fresh look with updated legal research can add new insights for litigants, lawyers and linguists alike.
References
Ainsworth, J. (2006) Linguistics as a knowledge domain in the law. Drake Law Review 54: 651–669.
Ainsworth, J. and Juola, P. (2019) Who wrote this? Modern forensic authorship analysis as a model from valid forensic science. Washington University Law Review 96: 1159–1187.
Chaski, C.E. (2013) Best practices and admissibility of forensic author identification. Journal of Law and Public Policy 212: 333–376.
Cheng, E. K. (2013) Being pragmatic about forensic linguistics. Journal of Law and Public Policy 212: 541–550.
Grant, T. (2022) The Idea of Progress in Forensic Authorship Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grossman, J. (ed.) (1993) The Chicago Manual of Style (14th edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Howald, B. S. (2006) Comparative and non-comparative forensic linguistic analysis techniques: methodologies for negotiating the interface of linguistics and evidentiary jurisprudence in the American judiciary. University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 83: 285–327.
Howald, B. S. (2008) Authorship attribution under the rules of evidence: empirical approaches – a layperson’s legal system. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 15: 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v15i2.219
Koehler, J. J. (2013) Linguistic confusion in court: evidence from the forensic sciences. Journal of Law and Public Policy 212: 515–539.
Koppel, M., Schler, J. and Argamon, S. (2013) Authorship attribution: what’s easy and what’s hard? Journal of Law and Public Policy 212: 317–331. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2274891
Labov, W. (1988) The judicial testing of linguistic theory. In D. Tannen (ed.), Linguistics in Context 159–192. New York: Ablex.
McMenamin, G. R. (1993) Forensic Stylistics, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
McMenamin, G. R. (2004) Disputed authorship in U.S. law. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 11: 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1558/sll.2004.11.1.73
McMenamin, G. R. (2010) Forensic stylistics. In M. Coulthard and A. Johnson (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics 487–507. Abingdon: Routledge.
Shuy, R. (2007a) A dozen reasons why linguistic expertise is rejected in court. http://www.rogershuy.com/pdf/A%20dozen%20reasons%20why%20ling.op.pdf
Shuy, R. (2007b) Language in the American courtroom. Language and Linguistics Compass 1: 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818x.2007.00002.x
Solan, L. M. (1999) Can the legal system use experts on meaning? Tennessee Law Review 66: 1167–1199.
Solan, L. M. and Tiersma, P. M. (2004) Author identification in American courts. Applied Linguistics 25: 448–463. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.4.448
Solan, L. M. and Tiersma, P. M. (2005) Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Solan, L. M. (2013) Intuition vs. algorithm: The case for forensic authorship attribution. Journal of Law and Public Policy 212: 551–576.
Tiersma, P. M. and Solan, L. M. (2002) The linguist on the witness stand: forensic linguistics in American courts. Language 78(2): 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0135
Zimmer, B. (2011, July 23) Decoding your e-mail personality. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinioin/sunday/24g
US legal reference materials
Ashworth, A. L., Farrell, T. B., Kane, R. M., Melley, A. E., Oakes, K. and Van Arsdale. B. J. (2022) Annotation. In Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition. National Legal Research Group.
Ceglia v. Zuckerberg, No. 10-CV-00569A(F), 2013 WL 1208558 (S.D.N.Y. March 26, 2013).
Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 974 F.Supp.2d 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
Dutcher v. Bold Films LP, No. 2:15-cv-110-DB, 2019 WL 181353 (D.Utah Jan. 11, 2019).
Graham, M. H. (ed.) (2021) Annotation. In Handbook of Federal Evidence (9th edition). Thomson West.
Kleiman v. Wright, No. 18-cv-80176, 2020 WL 6729362 (S.D.Fla. Nov. 16, 2020).
Motorola v. Murray, 147 A.3d 751 (D.C. 2016).
People v. Coleman, 24 N.E.3d 373 (Ill.App.Ct. 2014).
State v. McGuire, 16 A.3d 411, 430 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2011).
Theranos, Inc. v. Fuisz Pharma LLC, No. 5:11-cv-05236-PSG, 2014 WL 12695908 (N.D.Ca. March 10, 2014).
Theranos, Inc. v. Fuisz Pharma LLC (Leonard, Aff.), No. 5:11-cv-05236-PSG, 2013 WL 4434107 (N.D.Ca. August 12, 2013).
Throckmorton v. Holt, 180 U.S. 552 (1901).
United States v. Clifford, 704 F.2d 86 (3rd Cir. 1983).
United States v. Frye, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir. 1923).
United States v. Van Wyk, 83 F.Supp.2d 515 (D.N.J. 2000).
United States v. Zajac, 748 F.Supp.2d 1340 (D.Utah 2010).
