Skip to main content

How do text messages complicate contemporary sexual assault adjudication?


By Heather Hlavka and Sameena Mulla 
Department of Social and Cultural Sciences, Marquette University


“There’s no video, no injury. It’s purely one hundred percent ‘he said, she said.’ They had a terrible relationship. They were nasty to each other and they don’t get along well, probably never will. But there is no evidence to support the state’s case, other than their words.” Our article, “’That’s How She Talks’: Animating Text Message Evidence in the Sexual Assault Trial,” begins with these familiar words offered by a defense attorney during a sexual assault trial in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The oft-invoked trope of “he said, she said” in cases of sexual violence suggests that without third-party eye witness testimony or material evidence, sexual assault allegations rest on conflicting reports provided by victims, the accused, and other witnesses. But how do trial attorneys reinvent this trope when the words of the witnesses are preserved as text messages?

Text messages are recorded communication, distinct from memory recalled on the stand or material documents recorded for official purposes. Texting involves the exchange of short messages traded in intense interactions over discrete periods of time, bringing previously private scenes and conversations to life in a court of law. While text transcripts resolve the question of what exactly was said and when, we argue that texts introduce additional ambiguities and dilemmas of interpretation during trial. These ambiguities arise through the strategic enunciating and performance of text messages on the witness stand. In recent days, political operative Roger Stone has made such claims, arguing that the text messages cited in the indictment against him are merely taken out of context as he had a joking relationship with the recipient. Prosecutors assert that Stone’s words are threats. While tone can be called into question, text messages are also used during investigations and trials to interpret a particular relationship. For example, actor Kevin Spacey’s defense team has requested text message evidence, suggesting that the correspondence between Spacey and his accuser will be exculpatory.

Focusing on two sexual assault trials that relied heavily on text messaging evidence of conversations between the complaining witness and the defendant, we demonstrate how court actors animate texts that emphasized particular rape tropes while playing upon gendered, racialized, and familial cultural norms. In our comparative analysis, we introduce two victim-witnesses, “Anna” and “Tamee,” both women of color, and show how their text messages, and those of the defendants, are used during trial. Trial attorneys, as well as other witnesses, transform texts into performances that play out in front of the jury in ways that reinforce cultural narratives of sexuality, race, gender, and victimization.

For Anna, Tamee, and the defendants, text messaging evidence imbues the already contentious terrain of credibility. In addition to the typical features associated with credible testimony, such as consistency and plausibility, text messages introduce added information about each witness’s social location, at times through the colloquial forms attributed to their messages. This occurs through both subtle and explicit contexts of gendered racialization. For example, text messages between Anna, her sister, and the defendant emphasized Anna’s attachment to her family along with her passivity, timidity, and sexual naiveté. Texts between Tamee and the defendant, on the other hand, served to sexualize and defeminize her, exposing Tamee to accusations of being an aggressive (and therefore, unwomanly) woman, and worse yet, a callous mother.

Although attorneys remain the primary narrators and animators of text message evidence, witnesses, too, transform written text in ways that jurors might find most compelling and convincing. We suggest that who reads the text messages and how those messages are read accounts for their uptake. Should text message transcripts be read in dispassionate tones by the police who recovered them, or should they be read by one of the parties who authored the exchange? While, text messages seemingly settle the lacunae of “he said, she said,” they are highly interpretable documents that can be strategically animated by a variety of individuals to address questions of credibility. Understanding these processes might influence attorney’s evidentiary choices and change the calculus regarding defendant’s decisions to testify in court.

Popular posts from this blog

Europeanization or National Specificity? Legal Approaches to Sexual Harassment in France, 2002–2012

By Abigail Saguy, UCLA

Sexual harassment represents a massive problem for working women worldwide. A recent social media campaign has brought increased awareness to this fact. In late 2017—after three-dozen women accused Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment, assault, or rape—millions of women posted “Me Too” on Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, and other social media platforms. Taking inspiration from African American activist Tarana Burke—who, in 2007, started an offline “Me Too” campaign to let sex abuse survivors know that they were not alone—actress Alyssa Milano launched this online Me Too campaign to shift the focus from Weinstein to victims. She hoped this would “give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.”[1] While some posted simply, “Me Too,” others provided wrenching detail about abuse they had sometimes never before shared publicly. In France, a similar social media campaign flourished, under the hashtag “balance ton porc,” loosely translated as “sq…

Comment: Making valid claims in social science research: A comment on Jenness and Calavita

By Tom Tyler, Yale Law School

I am writing to comment on several methodological issues raised by the article by Valerie Jenness and Kitty Calavita, entitled “It depends on the outcome”: Prisoners, grievances, and perceptions of justice”. I am pleased that the methodology blog for Law and Society Review has been created and provides a forum to discuss research design issues. I will address three aspects of the study: operationalization of the variables; statistical analysis; and inclusiveness of the literature review.

The Jenness/Calavita paper studies California prisons using data collected through interviews with prisoners. The paper says that it tests the perceptual procedural justice model, in particular there are frequent references to the Tyler model, in a prison setting. The study concludes that “prisoners privilege the actual outcome of disputes as their barometer of justice” showing “the dominance of substantive outcomes” (from the abstract)”.

I agree with Jenness and Cala…

A Response to Tyler

By Kitty Calavita and Valerie Jenness, University of California, Irvine

We appreciate Tom Tyler’s close read of our article, “It Depends on the Outcome’: Prisoners, Grievances, and Perceptions of Justice,” and his pinpointing of issues of concern to him. We would like to respond here to just a few points.

Most importantly, it is a mischaracterization to say, as Tyler does, that we argue “that perceptions of procedural justice do not matter in the prison context.” As we say in the abstract (“These findings do not refute the importance of procedural justice” [p. 41]) and throughout the paper (e.g., “Nor do we argue that procedural justice is not important to these prisoners” [p. 43]), procedural justice is important. It matters, both as a moral principle and as a concrete reality for people involuntarily interacting with the long arm of the state, whether in a police stop or in a prison cell. The prisoners we interviewed clearly want to be treated fairly and with respect; nevertheless,…