Peter Tiersma

Loyola Law School

Los Angeles, California

www.LANGUAGEandLAW.org

San Diego State University

April 8, 2006

The Language of Crime

1. Officer: Does the trunk open?

Suspect: (opens trunk).

2. Would you mind if I took a look around there?

Do you mind if we search your vehicle?

Well then do you mind if we search the truck?

3. Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.

4. Wait a minute. Maybe I ought to have an attorney.

I think I might need a lawyer.

Didn't you say I have the right to an attorney?

5. Ronnie, Listen Chump! Resign or You'll Get Your Brains Blown Out.

6. Your Husband, David Goldstein will have his health take a turn for the worse this Christmas Season and you will be widowed in 1990. I am truly sorry that this is the "Kay Ser Ra Ser Ra" scenario that has to take place.

7. The concluding words of his letters (are all the windows insured?) to Judges Swain, Smith and Huls are not such as to be a simple inquiry into the status of the insurance on their respective windows. We think that the words (are all windows insured?) as used in context with the remaining parts of the letters and considering all of the other facts and circumstances could well be adapted to imply a threat to do damage to the respective judges or to their property.

8. Q. Do you have any bank accounts in Swiss banks, Mr. Bronston

A. No, sir.

Q. Have you ever?

A. The company had an account there for about six months, in Zurich.

9. Q: In paragraph eight of her affidavit, she says this: “I have never had a sexual relationship with the President....

Is that a true and accurate statement as far as you know?

A: That is absolutely true.

10. Q. And you remember that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit said that she had had no sexual relationship with you. Do you remember that?

A. I do.

Q. And do you remember in the deposition that Mr. Bennett asked you about that. This is at the end of the -- towards the end of the deposition. And you indicated, he asked you whether the statement that Ms. Lewinsky made in her affidavit was -

A. Truthful.

Q. -- true. And you indicated that it was absolutely correct.

A. I did. And at the time that she made the statement, and indeed to the present day because, as far as I know, she was never deposed since the Judge ruled she would not be permitted to testify in a case the Judge ruled had no merit; that is, this case we're talking about.

I believe at the time that she filled out this affidavit, if she believed that the definition of sexual relationship was two people having intercourse, then this is accurate. And I believe that is the definition that most ordinary Americans would give it.

If you said Jane and Harry have a sexual relationship, and you're not talking about people being drawn into a lawsuit and being given definitions, and then a great effort to trick them in some way, but you are just talking about people in ordinary conversations, I'll bet the grand jurors, if they were talking about two people they know, and said they have a sexual relationship, they meant they were sleeping together; they meant they were having intercourse together.

So, I'm not at all sure that this affidavit is not true and was not true in Ms. Lewinsky's mind at the time she swore it out.

11. For the purposes of this definition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes ... contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to gratify or arouse the sexual desire of any person…

"Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.

12. A. Yes. My -- I can tell you what my understanding of the definition is, if you want me to --

Q. Sure.

A. - do it. My understanding of this definition as it covers contact by the person being deposed with the enumerated areas, if the contact is done with an intent to arouse or gratify. That' a my understanding of the definition.

Q. What did you believe the definition to include and exclude? What kinds of activities?

A. I thought the definition included any activity by the person being deposed, where the person was the actor and came in contact with those parts of the bodies with the purpose or intent or [sic] gratification, and excluded any other activity.

13. Q. Well, the grand jury would like to know, Mr. President, why it is that you think that oral sex performed on you does not fall within the definition of sexual relations as used in your deposition.

A. Because that is -- if the deponent is the person who has oral sex performed on him, then the contact is with -- not with anything on that list, but with the lips of another person. It seems to be self-evident that that's what it is. And I thought it was curious.

Let me remind you, sir, I read this carefully. And I thought about it. I thought about what 'contact' meant. I thought about what "intent to arouse or gratify" meant.

And I had to admit under this definition that I'd actually had sexual relations with Gennifer Flowers. Now, I would rather have taken a whipping than done that, after all the trouble I'd been through with Gennifer Flowers...