Legal Communication Papers @ NCA 2013

Many papers on legal communication were presented at NCA 2013: The 99th Annual Convention of the National Communication Association , held November 21-24, 2013 in Washington, DC, USA. Here is a list of those I could identify. For abstracts and full text, please contact the authors. (If you know of other papers on legal communication presented at NCA 2013, please feel free to identify them in the comments to this post. Click here for the complete NCA 2013 program.)

• Jennifer Adams, DePauw University: Defensive Stories: A Comparative Narrative Analysis of Court Statements by Eugene V. Debs and Scott Nearing in Criminal Sedition Trials, 1918


• Pat Arneson, Duquesne University: ‘Give ’Em Hell Harry’: Free Speech, Executive Order 9981, and Desegregation of the Military


• Danielle Baxter, Indiana University: Bearing Citizenship: The Mission to Familiarize Immigrants’ Rights


• Shelby Bell, University of Minnesota: Traditions of Hermeneutic Rhetoric in the Law: An Analysis of Justice Holmes “The Path of the Law” and the Legal Community


• Michael J. Bergmaier, Penn State University: “The End of an Era”: The Rhetorical Force of Loving v. Virginia


• Jaclyn Bissell, University of Maryland, College Park: Connecting the Presidency and the Court: Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Supreme Court Appointments as Rhetorical Action


• Mary A. Bock, University of Texas: Connecting Photography and Justice: Police Witnessing Projects


• K.C. Councilor, University of Wisconsin, Madison: From Ancient Human Remains to Modern Speaking Subject: The Kennewick Man as Witness in the Case for Claiming the Past


• Dale Cyphert, University of Northern Iowa: Prepared to Die for Truth: Mandela’s Rhetorical Embodiment at Rivonia


• Thomas Czarples, Penn State University: Constructing the Deliberating Subject Through Celebrity and Coherence: A Contrast of the Former and Current Washington State Juror Orientation Videos


• Aaron M. Dimock, Minnesota State University, Mankato: Changing Connections and Changing Meanings: War in the Drone Age


• Erin Donovan et al., University of Texas, Austin: An Experimental Test of Medical Disclosure and Consent Documentation: Assessing Patient Comprehension, Self-Efficacy, and Uncertainty


• Eric Paul Engel, University of New Hampshire (Chair): Convene, Commune, Connect, Coordinate: A Panel Discussion on the Application of CMM (the Coordinated Management of Meaning) in the Context of Law


• Eric Paul Engel, University of New Hampshire (Chair): Toward a More Civil Union: Connecting Communication, Ethics, and Professionalism in the Practice of Law


• Sarah K. Fields, University of Colorado, Denver: “The Best Thing to Ever Happen”: The Discourse of Title IX’s 40th Anniversary in Non-Sport Media


• Jessica Furgerson, Ohio University: Contraception and the Court: Stasiastic Inquiry of the Arguments Advanced in Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Carey


• Adam J. Gaffey, Black Hills State University: The Text as a Living Process: Frederick Douglass, August First, and the Memory of the Emancipation Proclamation


• John Gastil, Penn State University, Katherine R. Knobloch, Colorado State University, Dan Kahan, Yale University, and Don Braman, George Washington University: Deliberation across Cultural Cognitive Divides: A Study of Cultural Bias in Public Forums


• Chelsea Graham, University of Kansas: Connections to the Past, for the Future: John F. Lacey and Early Rhetorics of Conservation and Preservation in the United States


• Stephen Haas and Sarah Whitton, University of Cincinnati: The Significance of Living Together and Importance of Marriage in Same-Sex Couples


• Karen L. Hartman, California State University, Stanislaus: “Title IX needed now more than ever”: Discourses surrounding a key gender equity law


• Ruth L. Hickerson and Karen Tracy, University of Colorado, Boulder: Storied-Arguments and Societal Change: The Case of Legislative Hearings about Marriage Laws


• Abbie Hodgson, University of Kansas: Courts Constituting Citizenship: A Rhetorical Analysis of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission


• Sarah J. Jackson, Northeastern University: Defining Women in Need: VAWA Identity Politics


• Justin Killian, Hamline University: Vote No: Minnesota and Marriage


• Katherine R. Knobloch, Colorado State University: Connecting Micro-Deliberation to Government Decision Making: Institutionalizing the Oregon CIR


• Anne Kretsinger-Harries, Penn State University: America Weighs In: The Rhetorical Aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education


• Kenneth Lythgoe, University of Wisconsin, Madison: Sleight of Hand: Michigan’s Anti-Bullying Law, (Un)acceptable Exceptions, and the Reversal of Policymaking Rhetoric


• Ryan Malphurs and Kevin-Khristian Cosgriff-Hernandez, Tara Trask & Associates: Supreme Advocacy: A Discussion with Supreme Court Advocates and Reporters


• Paul McKean, University of Illinois: The Inter-Branch Rhetoric of Lyndon Johnson’s Freedom of Information Act Signing Statement


• Sara L. McKinnon, University of Wisconsin, Madison: Excavating the Sex/Gender/Sexuality Matrix in US Asylum Law


• Robert Mills, Northwestern University: Law and the Sublime Figure of Terror: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project


• Robert Mills, Northwestern University: Waiting Before the Law: The Performance of Argument at the Supreme Court


• Kevin Musgrave, University of Wisconsin, Madison: Examining public argument in New York Times coverage of Citizens United


• Molly Niesen, Eastern Illinois University: From Gray Panther to National Nanny: The Kidvid Crusade and the Eclipse of the FTC, 1977–1980


• Gregory Paul, Kansas State University: Comparing Justice Attitudes and Practices of Restorative Justice Facilitators and the Public


• Gregory Paul, Kansas State University and Linda L. Putnam, University of California, Santa Barbara: Whose Justice? Identifying Legalistic, Restorative, and Retributive Justice Paradigms in the Workplace


• Robert Richards and John Gastil, Penn State University: Legislation by Amateurs: The Role of Legal Details and Knowledge in Initiative Deliberation


• Jonathan P. Rossing, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis: Equal Opportunity Offenders: When Legal Discourse Goes Popular


• Jennifer Sandoval, University of Central Florida: Labor Pains: Assisted Reproductive Technology Legislation in India


• Jennifer A. Scarduzio, Lamar University: Confronting Homelessness at Work: The Public Spectacle of Courtroom Arraignments


• Edward Schiappa, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: The Supreme Court ruling on DOMA and Prop 8: A Panel Discussion


• Susan A. Sci, Regis University, and Darrin Hicks, University of Denver: Flesh/Machine/Inference


• Nick J. Sciullo, Georgia State University: A Rhetoric of Prisons and Profits: The Debate Surrounding Arizona’s SB 1070


• Nick J. Sciullo, Georgia State University: The Whole Story: Bringing Facts Back to Legal Research through the Saga of Attorney General Marc Dann


• Carolyn Shue et al., Ball State University: Health Care Reform: Understanding Individuals’ Attitudes and Information Sources


• Stephen Smith, University of Arkansas: ‘A Mockery of Our Bill of Rights’: Harry Truman and the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950


• Amy Stockhausen, University of Utah: Hacktivist Culture and the Violence of Law


• Katie Margavio Striley, Ohio University: The Discursive Formation of Corporate Personhood in Santa Clara v. The Southern Pacific Railroad: A Historiography of the Case that Changed the World


• Michael Tannebaum, Georgia State University: Adoption of an “Arizona-style” immigration law: Examining media portrayal of Georgia’s anti-illegal immigration bill


• Andrea J. Terry, Texas A&M University: A Pentad of Problems: Mexican Citizenship, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and H.R. 202


• Lou Davidson Tillson, Murray State University (Chair): Can We All Fit in the Back of the Bus? Rhetorical Power, Ideographs and the Connections of Marginalized Groups Through the Lens of “Separate but Equal”


• Tuula-Riitta Valikoski and Sanna Ala-Kortesmaa, University of Tampere: Communicational orientations of prosecutors in a trial


• Thomas Vaughn, Arkansas Tech University: They Came from Above: Cloaking Technophobia in the Rhetoric of Civil Liberties in Rand Paul’s Filibuster


• Mary Lynn L. Veden, University of Arkansas: Degenerate Justice and Evolutionary Progress: The Legal Polemic of Roscoe Pound’s 1906 Address to the American Bar Association


• Mary Lynn L. Veden, University of Arkansas: “Down the Rabbit Hole”: Rand Paul’s Re/construction of Due Process and Natural Rights


• Mary Lynn L. Veden, University of Arkansas: Removing the nuisance: The rhetorical silencing of prisoner legal petitions


• Ruth Wagoner, Bellarmine University: Inventing Stories in Opening Statements


• Naomi Warren, University of Southern California: Kicking and Screaming: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 Enters the Twenty-First Century


• Carolyn Rosas Webber, Kent State University, Stark: Doing the Job in Pleasantville: The Particularity of Whiteness in a County Juvenile Court


• Jason G. Williamson, University of Georgia: Disconnecting Rights: Arguments of Dissociation in Justifications of Obama’s Drone Policy


• Robert Yale, University of Dallas, Pamela Morris, University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, and Benjamin T. Russell, Purdue University: Relationship between Argument Strength, Juror Verdicts, and Verdict Confidence: A Test of the Perceived Argument Strength Scale


• Anna Marjorie Young, Pacific Lutheran University, and Jeremiah Hickey, St. John’s University: Beyond Supreme: Retired Justices as Public Intellectuals

Filed under: Articles and papers, Conference papers, Research findings Tagged: Judges' legal communication, Judicial communication, Lawyers' communication, Lawyers' legal communication, Legal communication, Legal rhetoric, Legislative communication, National Communication Association Annual Convention, NCA, NCA 2013, Trial communication



via Legal Informatics Blog http://legalinformatics.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/legal-communication-papers-nca-2013/