Competing creole transcripts on trial

A criminal prosecution of Jamaican Creole (JC) speaking ‘posse’(=gang) members in New York included evidence of recorded speech in JC. Clandestinerecordings (discussions of criminal events, including narration of a homicide) wereintroduced at trial. Taped data were translated for prosecution by a non-linguist nativespeaker of JC. Defense disputed these texts and commissioned alternative transcriptionsfrom a creolist linguist, who was a non-speaker of JC. Prosecution in turn hired anothercreolist, a near-native speaker of and specialist in JC, to testify on the relative accuracyof both sets of earlier texts. Differing representations of key conversations weresubmitted to a non-creole speaking judge/jury, both linguists testified, and defendantswere convicted. The role of linguistic testimony and practice (especially transcription)in the trial is analysed. A typology of linguistic expertise is given, and effects of thelanguage’s Creole status and lack of instrumentalization on the trial are discussed.