The use of "and" in courtroom cross-examination

-- by JLS
----- for the Grice Club.

Grice said, "Beware the cross-examination". He thought the common objective was spurious, apparent (rather than real), etc. And right he is! With caveats.

----

Consider "and"

---


The emphasis has been on the lawyer IMPLYING (to the jury) this or that to bias the witness's testimony. But surely there's also the strict analysis of the witness's utterance. To what extent is

"truth and nothing but the truth" -- a mere Kantian requirement or an oath?

I would replace the rather vague mention of "truth", in "nothing but the truth", to "truth-conditions"

---- The oath should thus go:

First, how it goes according to wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sworn_testimony
O
ath:

----- "I swear by

[substitute Almighty God/Name of God (such as Allah)
or the name of the holy scripture]

---- that the evidence I shall give shall be

(a) the Truth,

(b) the Whole Truth;

and

(c) nothing But the (whole) truth.

---

Affirmation

"I do

(a) solemnly and
(b) sincerely and
(c) truly (A) declare, and
----------(B) affirm
-----that the evidence I shall give shall be

(1) the truth,
(2) the whole truth and
(3) nothing but the truth.

Promise

"I promise before Almighty God that the evidence which
I shall give shall be

i. the truth,
ii. the whole truth, and
iii. nothing but the truth. [1]

--- I propose:

"I solemny swear I have read Davidson, "Truth and Meaning"".

---- (I write in jest).

---

But seriously:

"I do

(a) solemnly and
(b) sincerely and
(c) truly"

----- This is a good self-referential thing, because it applies to the oath itself. I.e., if we represent it by (O) it goes:

(O) I do
(a) solemnly and
(b) sincerely and
(c) truly (A) declare, and
----------(B) affirm
-----that the evidence -- even for (O) -- I shall give shall be
(1) the truth,
(2) the whole truth and
(3) nothing but the truth.

---- The point is important, because if this is an explicit performative, we have a 'that'-clause that post-cedes the performative verb. But surely the oath is meant to indicate that the oath itself is sincere, hence self-referential.

"I do
(a) solemnly and
(b) sincerely and
(c) truly (A) declare, and
----------(B) affirm
-----that the evidence I shall give shall be
(1) the truth,
(2) the whole truth and
(3) nothing but the truth.

-----

In which case:

"He stole five cars" (when he stole four) -- counts as 'truth-conditional' otiose. I.e. the truth-conditions for:

"He stole four cars"

is surely compatible with

"He stole five cars.

The point about the "whole truth", rhetorical as it sounds/is, is a nod to that. I.e. the idea is that what is merely a conversational cancellable defeasible (albeit generalised) implicature has been turned onto something to do with 'truth' (the 'whole truth'). The idea being that if U thinks that Robber stole 5 cars, the 'evidence' U shall/will be giving will not be the whole truth -- even if it never involved a falsehood, either.

---- In comparison, "nothing but the truth" seems like a rhetorical flourish. It's not like anything ELSE U should care to give will be welcomed. I cannot thing what "anything" _but_ the truth (other than falsehood) could mean in this context. But surely the idea of 'falsity' is best left IMPLICATED. It would be a dubious oath that commits you "not to lie".

----

The Scholastics dealt with this in terms of 'suppressio veri' and 'suggestio falsi' -- and I wouldn't be surprised if it was the sophists who first saw that.

----

Now, if "and" is a piece of cake, wait till you get to "or" and "if" in cross-examination!