In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

3. The Mad Doctors Meet McNaughton: The Battle for Narrative Supremacy in the Trial of Mary Harris The doctor, like the poor, we always have with us. Like bad luck (and very much like it), he is everywhere. —Richard Harris, Hints on Advocacy The narrative elements of a popular trial can be manipulated by either side in an attempt to persuade juries that a particular woman is a criminal or a victim. The Packard case is a simple example. It is easy for the modern reader to dismiss the antiquated notion that failing to obey one’s husband is either a crime or a sure indication of madness. But it is also easy to dismiss the case on another basis. The judge in the case deliberately refused to delay the trial until an “expert” on insanity could arrive to testify. Thus, the rhetors and their audience were both comprised of laymen. Perhaps, the reader could say, the lack of any knowledge of the medical “facts” on all sides gave the popular concept of “womanhood” more persuasive influence that it might normally have had. Indeed, the medical profession’s insistence that Packard was insane despite the trial would indicate that at least one group remained unconvinced. So far, then, it has been demonstrated that popular images of women’s roles can sway ordinary, untrained reasoners. Although juries will likely never be comprised of experts, one still wonders what kind of narrative transformations can be wrought by trained professionals with “facts” at their fingertips. Thus it might be instructive to look at a case where “experts” are battling each other. Communication research has been slow to adapt narrative methods in the study of legal rhetoric, perhaps due to an overall hesitancy with the concept of narrative itself. Although narrative has long been studied within rhetoric as a form of support for arguments within a particular case, the notion that 40 the crimes of womanhood argument itself can be subsumed by narrative is more problematic (Fisher). Judges and advocates, well trained in the premises and precedents of their profession, work within a tightly defined framework to create legal arguments that are inaccessible to individuals not equally trained. An attempt to reduce this rhetoric to “mere” storytelling is a daunting task. Human beings, however , are exposed to the common cultural narratives that surround their daily lives, no matter what their profession. When lawyers cross from the public sphere to the legal sphere, they do not shed that culture. It is inevitable that public moral narratives will meet and interact with traditional legal opinions, sometimes altering both forever. As Ferguson notes, “The cultural work of interpretation in courtroom analysis lies, therefore, in the relation between legal and nonlegal narratives” (84). The word “between” is instructive, because it implies that there are only two universes, the legal, populated by trained lawyers, and the nonlegal, populated by everyone else. In fact, the nexus of stories that come together in a legal case might involve multiple narrative universes that on the surface would appear to have little to do with one another. The previous chapter demonstrated that the stories about the feminine character produced by popular culture can influence a lawyer’s weapons of argument. These popular images, however, also have influenced the development of stories in a second professional realm that is ostensibly logical, scientific, and completely within the “rational world” model of persuasion: the profession of medicine. The relationship between the popular view of womanhood and the professional practice of physicians has been well documented (Smith-Rosenberg; Showalter). In addition, the medical profession had to deal with popular notions of the character of physicians, which impinged upon their power and social standing in the community (Mohr). These narrative elements, already present to some extent in American courtrooms, become especially salient when a physician is called upon to enter the legal wrangling over a case. Suddenly three narrative universes are interacting. The stock plot lines, characters, and morals from each are molded by the concerned rhetors into narratives that will be accepted by all participants. The stories that result are then carried back into their respective fields. I will take a critical look at this important relationship through the analysis of a landmark criminal trial that marks a major turning point in the battle for supremacy between two professional groups that were highly suspect at the time: lawyers and doctors. In 1865, a fierce battle over who had the right to determine the guilt or innocence of...

Share