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

Submit Your Papers to Law & Society Review!

Rebecca L. Sandefur

 The Law and Society Association and the whole field of law and society research owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Jeannine Bell, Susan Sterett, and Margot Young, for their work as Editors of Law & Society Review.As incoming Editor, I am grateful to them for their stewardship of the journal, their generous support of authors and aspiring authors, and their innovations to the Review, including this blog.
The incoming Editorial Board has begun receiving new manuscripts as they are submitted. Jon Gould, Robert Lawless, Elizabeth Mertz, Jennifer Robbennolt and Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve have generously agreed to serve in this role. Together with participation from the Editorial Advisory Board -- a group deeply appreciated and too numerous to list here -- these scholars’ contributions expand the expertise of the journal’s editorial office across disciplines, methods, theoretical traditions, and regions of the world. Danielle McClellan continues to steady the ship …

TASER Technology and Police Officers’ Understanding and Use of Force

Michael Sierra-Arévalo
Rutgers University-Newark

The TASER--a weapon that uses electric current to incapacitate a subject by causing complete neuromuscular incapacitation--is ubiquitous among U.S. police officers. Spurred by pressure to reduce the lethality of police force, this force technology it is now used by more than 17,000 U.S. law enforcement agencies.

Proponents of TASERs are quick to point out that research shows that most TASER deployments do not result in serious injury or death, and that TASERs provide officers with a useful, less-than-lethal alternative to their firearms. TASER critics, in turn, emphasize that even if TASERs are rarely lethal, 50,000 volts cause excruciating pain, fear, and psychological distress. They further emphasize that the TASER, like any weapon, can still be misused by police officers.

Though a large body of research examines police force, little is known about how officers make their use-of-force decisions in light of this new, less-than-lethal t…