ABSTRACT
A decade ago Solan (1999) addressed the following question regarding the role of linguists as expert witnesses: can the legal system use experts on meaning? His article examined linguists’ expertise with regard to various types of legal texts (for example, contracts, patents, jury instructions, interrogations) and reviewed the possible role of linguists according to standards for expert scientific evidence in court. He concluded that linguists can help the justice system in many instances where language is complex and/or ambiguous, serving as “tour guides” to the analysis of language and to how the range of possible meanings is determined. Ultimately, the judge or jury decides which meaning fits. This chapter considers a potential role for linguists in legal proceedings related to
gangs, an arena in which the current “tour guides” are rarely specialists in sociolinguistics or pragmatics, although criminal liability in these cases (and in the civil realm, injunctive restrictions on basic civil liberties) may turn on the interpretation of language evidence in context. The chapter takes a critical justice perspective, noting from the outset that public rhetoric urging a “war on crime” in California may distort the perception of youth and their behavior. Just as sociologists have shown that fear of youth gang crime may be more driven by notions of moral panic than actual crime statistics (Greene and Pranis 2007: 8-9; Nichols and Good 2004: 55-57), the characterization of language in defining a crime and youth involvement in it may also contradict the facts about youth behavior and mask significant sociolinguistic variation. In both instances, the work of sociolinguists and ethnographers suggests that youth behavior is viewed as more uniform (and more sinister) than it actually is. Teens who perform rap lyrics, use graffiti on their possessions, or adopt particular nicknames may do so to establish and maintain social identity. Their use may make their elders nervous, but it does not define youngsters as criminals, or make these fixed characteristics of their users. This chapter will first address over-determination of meaning in characterizing certain
types of language behavior as gang-related, giving examples from California civil and
criminal case trial transcripts, court opinions, and other documents. Next, it will critique current experts and examine the legal rules governing their testimony in gang prosecutions. It concludes with suggestions, not for substituting linguists for current experts, but for using information from sociolinguistic and ethnographic studies to provide a more informed and nuanced view, avoiding inappropriate application of criminal stigmata.
