Skip to main content
PRINT EDITION

Talking Back in Court

By June 1, 2021July 22nd, 2022No Comments

Abstract: People charged with crimes often speak directly to the judge presiding over their case. Yet, what can be seen in courtrooms across the U.S. is that defendants rarely “talk back” in court, meaning that they rarely challenge authority’s view of the law, the crime, the defendant, the court’s procedure, or the fairness of the proposed sentence.

With few exceptions, legal scholars have treated the occasions when defendants speak directly to the court as a problem to be solved by appointing more lawyers and better lawyers. While effective representation is crucial, this Article starts from the premise that defendants have important things to say that currently go unsaid in court. In individual cases, talking back could result in fairer outcomes. On a systemic level, talking back could bring much-needed realism to the criminal legal system’s assumptions about crime and punishment that produce injustice.

This Article analyzes three types of power that prevent defendants from talking back in court: sovereign, disciplinary, and social-emotional power. While sovereign power silences defendants through fear, disciplinary power silences defendants by imposing a system of order within which talking back seems disorderly. Finally, social-emotional power silences defendants by imposing an emotional regime in which self-advocacy is both a breach of decorum and an affront to the court’s perception of itself as a source of orderliness and justice. The dynamics of social-emotional power are particularly critical to evaluating court reform efforts focused on improving courtroom culture. Paradoxically, the more solicitous the judge, the less the defendant may feel comfortable raising concerns that challenge the court’s narrative of justice.

Download the Full Article

Other Articles from WLR Print Edition

March 1, 2025 in PRINT EDITION

What’s Important to Write About? A Century of Washington Law Review Topics

Abstract: This Article examines the topics of all lead articles in Washington Law Review during its past ninety-eight years of publication. The analysis illustrates the changing interests of legal academics,…
Read More
March 1, 2025 in PRINT EDITION

Tenant Rights Deserve Consumer Protections: The Case for Overturning State v. Schwab

Abstract: Tenancy is a precarious housing arrangement—tenants do not own their homes yet depend on housing stability as a foundation for engaging in almost all aspects of life. For more…
Read More
March 1, 2025 in PRINT EDITION

Washington’s Implementation of Legalized Cannabis: A Model for Other States and the Federal Government

Abstract: This Article examines the process and outcomes of cannabis legalization in Washington State, offering insights for other states and potential federal legalization schemes. It begins with an overview of…
Read More