Inferring and Explaining

139 cases made in the O. J. Simpson trial or by Abe. Te recommended ruling in Brown , indeed Bell’s entire reading of the case, does not explain, at least in a scientist’s or detective’s sense, any of the evidence. And just as we needed a standard to judge the evidential success or failure of all these arguments, we need a standard with which to assess Geneva’s evidence. Fabula and Sjuzet Here comes some highfalutin technical terminol- ogy. It comes from (yet some more jargon) nar- ratology: “Te branch of knowledge or literary criticism that deals with the structure and func- tion of narrative and its themes, conventions, and symbols.” 18 Literary critics in the Russian formalist tradition distinguished between the basic bare bones of the story, or the plot, and the way the story was told. Te story, or narra- tive, they labeled the fabula ; the specifc telling of the story, its narrative discourse, they called the sjuzet .Te same story regarding a day’sworth of action can be told in a single sentence proceed- ing forward or backward and froma frst-person or a third-person point of view. When I woke up, I packed two loaded guns and a ski mask, drove to the bank, robbed it, and was back in time for dinner. I was back in time for dinner, having robbed the bank to which I had driven with a ski mask and two loaded guns just afer my nap. He loved that old familiar, yet always strangely new, sensation of being someone else inside his ski mask, a pistol in each hand, watching the frightened teller count out a cool million. Nothing like it to wake a guy up. Nothing like it to give him a good appetite. 19 A single fabula and three very diferent sjuzets. Tis distinction has obvious relevance to aca- demic lawyers. Trial lawyers don’t just present facts for juries to consider; they tell them sto- ries. Te facts were not in much dispute in the O. J. Simpson trial nor in the case of Hamilton and his partner. It’s not just that the Los Ange- les County District Attorney’s Ofce and O. J.’s “dream team” told diferent stories by ofering alternative explanations of the facts; they told them in very diferent ways to the jury. Many scholars believe that O. J. was acquitted because his lawyers were better storytellers. We know that Abe’s ability to tell his story efectively was instrumental in getting Hamilton of: “Afer he’d won, several jurors told him that his TV argu- ment turned them around.” 20 Te Dixie Chicks do a pretty good job of telling Mary Ann and Wanda’s story. But I’m pretty skeptical of their judgment that Earl had to die. When I’ve tried to tell my rival narrative to students, I have to not only add some reminders about the dangers of vigilante justice but carefully framemy remarks so that I don’t sound indiferent about the seri- ousness of domestic abuse nor nañve about the protection that the criminal justice system can provide for Wanda. I can tell you frsthand that talking to students about global warming, the death penalty, Brown v. Board of Education , or Mary Ann and Wanda requires every bit as much attention to the sjuzet of my story as to its fabula. I have a dear friend who truly despises all talk of narrative in the context of political argu- ments. He believes that the facts should speak eVIdenCe, exPlanatIon, and narratIVe