66 By applying certain diction, Haller influences the juries to think that the
real predator is the prostitute, Regina Campo. 2
All charges against Roulet are false and illogical.
Context of situation:
This dialogue is called the lawyers’ direct examination. The dialogue is
conducted between Haller defense lawyer and his own client. In this case, Campo sued Roulet for rape and homicide attempts. The visum report showed
that she got strikes and violence marks or bruises on her face. However, these bruises were caused by a hard blow from the left hand. Here, Haller intended
to influence the judge and juries to believe that his client is not a left-handed, rapist and a freak as well.
Haller : Are you left-handed? Roulet :
No, I’am not..
Haller : You didn’t strike Ms. Campo with your left fist?
Roulet : No, I did not. Haller : Did you threaten to rape her?
Roulet : No, I did not. Haller : Did you tell her you were going to kill
her if she didn’t cooperate with you?
Roulet : No, I did not.
Data: CDApg 278-279 9 In the dialogue of direct examination above, Haller attempts to show the
judge and juries that his client has never perpetrated the entire prosecutor’s
accusation. Furthermore, he asserts that the entire charges against his client are illogical. The strategy used to legitimate this topic covers the entire
prosecutor’s accusation by applying diction “left-handed”. The use of this phrase is based on the evidence which shows that Campo got punch so badly
by the left hand. As a matter of fact, Roulet is not a left-handed. Therefore, the use of this diction shows that this evidence does not match to Roulet. The next
diction is the word “strike”. This word means to attack vigorously with a great
67 force. It is stronger than the other words such as
“punch, attack, and violate” so it gives an impression that the charges upon Roulet is exaggerated by the
prosecutor. Furthermore, it emphasized that Roulet is unable to do such action because he is not a left-handed.
Moreover, Haller uses the phrase “threaten to rape” in delivering
questions to Roulet. The use of this phrase is intended to make the charges upon Roulet illogical because Roulet as a wealthy realtor man logically does
not has to rape a prostitute if he only wants to have sex. As the result, the use of these diction influences people especially the judge and juries to use their
logic that Roulet would never do such thing because he certainly could easily afford to have sex with any prostitute as he want without trying to rape them.
b. Syntax
In this study, the researcher finds that the syntax element is used to provide a negative representation of the adversaries by the use of active
sentence to label the adversary as the active agent in conducting negative action dealing with the case.
The examples of the application of syntax element by Haller are presented as follows.
1 The Prosecutor and police cooperate in fabricating the evidence.
Context of situation:
The dialogue below discusses about Corliss as a prosecutors rebuttal witness. He was evidently a liar witness who previously convicted of perjury
since he made up his testimony in order to get a reward from the previous prosecutors who use his service. After knowing this fact, Judge Fullbright got
furious toward the prosecutor because the prosecutor deliberately brought a
68 liar who tarnished her trial. In this situation, the prosecutor Ted Minton
claimed that he did not know anything bad about Corliss ’ background.
However, the defense lawyer, Haller proved that Ted lied about this. However, Ted kept denying it. Moreover, he swore to god that he really did
not know it. At this time, Haller drew another Ted’s negative representation.
Minton :
I didn’t know Corliss’s background Minton said forcefully. I swear to God I didn’t know. The intensity of
his words brought a momentary silence to the chambers. But soon I slipped into the void.
Haller : Just like you didn’t know about the knife, Ted?
Judge Fullbright : Fullbright looked from Minton to me and then back at
Minton. What knife? She asked. Minton said nothing.
Haller : Tell her, I said. Minton : Minton shook his head.
I don’t know what he’s talking about, he said.
Judge Fullbright : Then you tell me, the judge said to me. Haller : Judge, if you wait on discovery from the DA, you might as
well hang it up at the start, I said. Witnesses disappear, stories change, you can lose a case just sitting around
waiting.
Judge Fullbright : All right, so what about the knife. Haller : I needed to move on this case. So I had my investigator go
through the back door and get reports. It’s fair game. But
they were waiting for him and they phonied up a report on the
knife so I wouldn’t know about the initials. I didn’t know until I got the formal discovery packet.
Judge Fullbright : she formed a hard line with her lips. Minton :
That was the police, not the DA’s office, Minton said quickly.
Judge Fullbright :
Thirty seconds ago you said you didn’t know what he was talking about, Fullbright said. Now suddenly you do. I
don’t care who did it. Are you telling me that this did in fact occur.
Minton : Minton reluctantly nodded.Yes, Your Honor. But I swear,
I didn’t…
Judge Fullbright : You know what this tells me? The judge said, cutting him
off. It tells me that from start to finish the state has not played fair in this case. It doesn’t matter who did what or
that Mr. Haller’s investigator may have been acting improperly. The state must be above that. And as evidenced
today in my courtroom it has been anything but that.
69 Data: CDApg 309 43
When the prosecutor told the judge that he really did not know anything bad about the background of his liar snitch, Haller shatters this claim by
asserting that the prosecutor and the DA has conducted a crime called “marked deck”. It is totally an illegal action which is done by fabricating the
key evidence. In this novel, the “marked deck” is done by the DA and the
prosecutor by replacing the picture of Roulet’s knife with another knife which
is not belong to Roulet. Therefore, it leads Haller to play a losing game in the trial. The assertion of this topic is done by using syntactic element of active
sentence which asserts that the DA and the prosecutor is the active agent in this fraud. The assertion of this topic can be seen in Haller’s utterance as
follows “Just like you didn’t know about the knife, Ted?” and “…”they were
waiting for him and they phonied up a report on the knife so I wo uldn’t know
about the initials”. The researcher also finds that the use of syntactic element is also an
attempt to shatter the charges by the prosecutor upon his client. It is done by creating a positive self-representation by the use of active or passive sentence.
The example is shown in the direct examination as follows. 2
It is a normal habit of Louis Roulet to carry his knife everyday to wherever he goes.
Context of situation:
This dialogue took place in the courtroom. It is called direct examination where the defense lawyer brought this own witness in order to defense the
