Presupposition The Discursive Strategies Employed in the Realization of the
80 that if someone really wants to leave their job, shehe must have another new
job or shehe already has enough money to leave hisher job and get retired. However, in this cross examination it is known that Campo does not have
another job. Furthermore, she previously justified Haller’s claim that Roulet is
a safe guy. Moreover she previously also said that she needed money. It can be examined in her statement as follows
: “I guess so justifying Haller’s question “You thought he was safe”. I don’t know. I needed the money and I
made a mistake with him.” By stating this premise, Haller draws a conclusion containing
presupposition as it can be seen in his question as follows. “Isn’t it also true
that you see the potential financial aspects of this case as a means of getting out of the business?” This question contains allegation which leads the juries
to think that from beginning, Regina Campo has chosen to target Louis Roulet as a ticket for leaving her profession as a prostitute. This allegation seems
legitimate for the fact that Roulet is a rich man. Therefore, Campo can sue him for money from this lawsuit.
2 Corliss is never charged with perjury since he deliberately sent by the
police.
Context of situation:
In previous conversations, Corliss evidently lied over his testimony about Roulet. Haller also showed the juries and judge that he repeatedly conducted
perjury by fabricating testimony about innocent defendant who confessed to him dealing with the crime they have done. Strangely, he had never been
charged with perjury ever since.
Haller : Were you ever charged with perjury in the Bentley case? I asked
81
him. Corliss :
No, I wasn’t, he said forcefully, as if that fact exonerated him of wrong doing.
Haller : Was that because the police were complicit with you in setting up Mr. Bentley?
Minton objected, saying, I am sure Mr. Corliss would have no idea what went into the decision of whether or not to charge him with perjury.
Fullbright sustained it but I didn’t care. I was so far ahead on this witness that there was no catching up. I just moved on to the next question.
Data: CDA pg 306 40 In previous examination, Corliss evidently lies over his testimony about
Roulet. Haller also shows the juries and the judge that Corliss repeatedly conducts perjury by fabricating his testimony about innocent defendant who
confessed to him dealing with the crime they have done. Strangely, he has never been charged with perjury ever since. In the examination above, Haller
shows the judge and juries that the DA, police, and the prosecutor are conspired in using the service of a regular snitch, Corliss. They do this action
as an attempt in order to win the lawsuit. Therefore, even though the evidence proves that Corliss lied in his testimony, he would not be charged with
perjury. Presupposition strategy is done by providing a tricky question to Corliss
as the initial premise in the preceded, right before Haller asserts his question. This attempt is done to emphasize negative other-representation. The premise
is created by a question as follows: Were you ever charged with perjury in the Bentley case? I asked him. No, I was not, he said forcefully. Then Haller
continues his question containing presupposition to give negative
82 representation about Corliss and the police by a question as follows.
“Was that because the police were complicit with you in setting up Mr. Bentley?”
The question above indicates that Corliss is not charged with perjury, because the police deliberately sent him. The researcher considers this
question as a presupposition since the juries and the judge have already known some background information about Corliss. First, Corliss has
repeatedly used by the previous prosecutors as a Jailhouse informant to help them to win the lawsuit by giving his false testimony. As the result, the
innocent defendant such as Bentley was wrongly convicted and imprisoned. Second, his perjury has clearly known and exposed by media, but strangely he
is never charged with perjury. These two premises categorize this discourse as a presupposition strategy which legitimizes the topicissue that Corliss is
never charged with perjury since he deliberately sent by the police.