'Mrs Buckley,you're telling a pack of lies': Cross-examination in the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh

This study analyses discourse strategies in the cross-examination of witnesses in the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh, highlighting the institutional constraints. It is argued that many of the exchanges reflect an asymmetrical power relation, in which certain actors lay claim to more extensive rights to frame the discourse and construct the narrative. Cross-examination aims not simply to establish a sequence of events, but crucially to undermine the credibility of key witnesses. The sense of drama is heightened by the juxtaposition of formalized ritual language with colloquial tones establishing a rapport with the jury, who in a conversation analysis (CA) perspective are “nonspeaking overhearers”, (Drew 1992: 475) and the judge and other courtroom actors, at the expense of the witness. Not only are the discursive rights of the jury during the proceedings severely constrained, but also those of the witnesses. An account is given of cross-examination in which artfully staged coups de théâtre elicit countermoves by actors fighting to salvage their credibility, blurring the boundary between legal proceedings and theatrical performances.