Competing creole transcripts on trial

Abstract

A criminal prosecution of Jamaican Creole (JC) speaking ‘posse’(=gang) members in New York included evidence of recorded speech in JC. Clandestinerecordings (discussions of criminal events, including narration of a homicide) wereintroduced at trial. Taped data were translated for prosecution by a non-linguist nativespeaker of JC. Defense disputed these texts and commissioned alternative transcriptionsfrom a creolist linguist, who was a non-speaker of JC. Prosecution in turn hired anothercreolist, a near-native speaker of and specialist in JC, to testify on the relative accuracyof both sets of earlier texts. Differing representations of key conversations weresubmitted to a non-creole speaking judge/jury, both linguists testified, and defendantswere convicted. The role of linguistic testimony and practice (especially transcription)in the trial is analysed. A typology of linguistic expertise is given, and effects of thelanguage’s Creole status and lack of instrumentalization on the trial are discussed.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.