19
respondent is implicitly or subtly criticized and shamed. Such shaming and criticizing meta-questions
abound in the bribery trial. The following are some examples of them.
Excerpt # 18 [BC.CRT.P.2001]
01 Q: What function do you think the director has played in the project?
02 A: (Mutters and then keeps silent. A significant long lapse.)
03
Q: (the defendant’s full name), this does not require much thinking, right?
04 A: (Silence)
Excerpt # 19 [BC.CRT.P.2001]
01 Q: As the public prosecutor asked just now, what was your purpose in
02 sending the money?
03 A: (Mumbles)
04 (Seven lines omitted. The defendant mumbles.)
05
Q: This question is not complicated and there is no necessity to avoid this
06 question.
Excerpt # 20 [BC.CRT.P.2001]
01 Q: What function do you think the director played in the project, positive
02 or negative?
03 A: (Mutters)
04 (Eight lines omitted. The defendant keeps silent.)
05
Q: This question is not complicated, nor is it hard to answer, since it
06
doesn’t require any calculation.
07 A: (Mumbles)
In these three excerpts, the prosecution (Excerpt # 18) and the presiding judge (Excerpts # 19 &
20) comment on the simplicity of their questions, which criticizes indirectly the defendant’s dishonesty by
evading answering them, and shames the defendant by the implied meaning that he is incompetent in not
being able to answer such easy questions. Through the implied verbal sanctioning and shaming, the
prosecution or the presiding judge tries to elicit the expected answer—the admission of guilt—from the
defendant.
Convention