Vol. 15 (2026)

Research Articles

Forensic Linguists as Expert Witnesses: Examining their Credibility in the Philippine Courtroom

Published 17.03.2026

  • Kreisler I. Fontamillas
    • ,
  • Marilu Rañosa-Madrunio

Kreisler I. Fontamillas
University of Santo Tomas / Romblon State University

Marilu Rañosa-Madrunio
University of Santo Tomas

Abstract

In a jurisdiction where forensic linguistics is still carving out its space and is deemed by some to be “junk science”, questions arise about the discipline’s legitimacy. This paper examines legal professionals’ perspectives on forensic linguists’ credibility as expert witnesses in Philippine courtrooms, positioning this investigation as a pioneering work. Given that forensic linguistics is not yet well known among lawyers and judges in the country, their perspectives on the credibility of forensic linguists as expert witnesses cannot be ignored. Anchored on the four identified credibility factors in the study of Brodsky et al. (2010) as a theoretical lens and employing thematic analysis as its research design, a holistic credibility concept emerged from this study, which can be used as a foundational basis for the establishment of forensic linguists’ professional code of conduct, and a prospective legal framework that regards forensic linguists as expert witnesses.

Cite as: Fontamillas & Rañosa-Madrunio, JLL 15 (2026), 1–28, DOI: 10.14762/jll.2026.001

Keywords

forensic linguists, credibility, expert witnesses, Philippine courtrooms

PDF

References

  1. Alias Technology (n.d.). Forensic Linguistic Services. Available at aliastechnology.com/forensic-linguistic-services/ (accessed 10 July 2025).
  2. Ainsworth, Janet (2022). Serving science and serving justice: Ethical issues faced by forensic linguists in their role as expert witnesses. In Guillén-Nieto & Stein (Eds.), Language as Evidence: Doing Forensic Linguistics (pp. 35–53). London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-84330-4_2.
  3. Ali, Ameer, David, Maya Kh. & Shah, Sardar A. (2022). Investigating lawyers’ perception of forensic linguistics in Pakistan’s Sindh Province: A way towards collaboration. Journal of Indonesian Community for Forensic Linguistics, 1(1), 1–13.
  4. Blackwell, Suzanne & Seymour, Fred (2015). Expert evidence and jurors’ views on expert witnesses. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(5), 673–681. DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2015.1063181.
  5. Boyce, Maria W. & Harris, Erica W. (2017). Update on challenges to expert witnesses. State Bar of Texas.
  6. Braun, Virginia & Clarke, Victoria (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
  7. Brodsky, Stanley L., Griffin, Michael P. & Cramer, Robert J. (2010). The witness credibility scale: An outcome measure for expert witness research. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28, 892–907. DOI: 10.1002/bsl.917.
  8. Brodsky, Stanley L. & Terrell, Joanne J. (2011). Testifying about mitigation: When social workers and other mental health professionals face aggressive cross-examination. Journal of Forensic Social Work, 1, 73–81. DOI: 10.1080/1936928X.2011.541206.
  9. Brodsky, Stanley L.; Cramer, Robert J. & DeCoster, Jamie (2009). Expert witness confidence and juror personality: Their impact on credibility and persuasion in the courtroom. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 37(1), 63–74.
  10. Coulthard, Malcolm & Johnson, Alison (2007). An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. London/New York: Routledge.
  11. Coulthard, Malcolm & Johnson, Alison (2010). An Introduction to Forensic Linguistic: Language in Evidence. New York: Taylor and Francis.
  12. Coulthard, Malcolm; Johnson, Alison & Wright, David (2016). An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. London: Routledge.
  13. Dahlberg, Karin (2008). The essences – the search for meaning structures in phenomenological analysis of life world phenomena. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health & Well-being, 1(1), 11–19. DOI: 10.3402/qhw.v1i1.4904.
  14. de Guzman, Allan (2020). Doing Qualitative Research in Education and Social Sciences. Manila: University of Santo Tomas.
  15. Durant, Alan & Leung, Janny H. C. (2016). Language and Law: A Resource Book for Students. New York: Routledge.
  16. Eades, Diana (2012). The sociolinguistics of language and law. In Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Bristol: Wiley-Blackwell.
  17. El-Sakran, Tharwat (2020). Laywers’ perceptions of forensic linguistic evidence in Arab countries:
  18. A call for collaboration. International Journal of Law, Language, & Discourse, 8(1), 60–78.
  19. Erlingsson, Christen L. & Brysiewicz, Petra (2017). A hands-on guide to doing content analysis.
  20. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 7(3), 93–99. DOI: 10.1016/j.afjem.2017.08.001.
  21. Freckelton, Ian, Reddy, Prasuna & Selby, Hugh (1999). Australian Judicial Perspective on Expert Evidence: An Empirical Study. Australian Institute of Judicial Administration Inc.
  22. Greeno, Elizabeth J., Bright, Charlotte L. & Rozeff, Leslie (2013). Lessons from the courtroom:
  23. Perspectives from child welfare attorneys and supervisors. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(9), 1618–1624. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.06.015.
  24. Heydon, Georgina (2019). Researching Forensic Linguistics: Approaches and Applications. New York: Routledge.
  25. Ivkovic, Sanja K. & Hans, Valerie P. (2003). Jurors’ evaluations of expert testimony:
  26. Judging the messenger and the message. Law & Social Inquiry, 28, 441. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.2003.tb00198.x.
  27. JaziLah, Nur I. (2016). Forensic linguists should be hired in the legal system for the sake of their
  28. assistance in investigating into criminal cases. Seminar Tahunan Linguistik, 2016, 1–5.
  29. Kovera, Margaret B. (2001). Expert testimony. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 5139–5141.
  30. Kuchler, Deborah D. (2010). An in-depth look at direct examination of expert witnesses. FDCC Quarterly/Winter 2010, 151–170.
  31. Lacandula-Rodriguez, Teresita A. (2023). Forensic evidence and expert testimony: The Philippine context. IBP Journal, 48(1), 85–113.
  32. Lerm, Henry (2015). ‘Beware the hired gun’ Are expert witnesses unbiased? De Rebus, 552. Available at: journals.co.za/doi/10.10520/EJC169065 (accessed 17 May 2026).
  33. Wilcox, Alicia M. & Nic Daéid, Niamh (2018). Jurors’ perceptions of forensic science expert witnesses: Experience, qualifications, testimony style and credibility. Forensic Science International, 291, 100–108.
  34. Meintjes-Vander Walt, Lirieka (2003). The proof of the pudding: The presentation and proof of expert evidence in South Africa. Journal of African Law, 47, 88–106. DOI: 10.1017/S0221855303001998.
  35. Miller, Bowman H. (1987). Terrorism and language: A text-based analysis of the German case.
  36. Terrorism, 9(4), 373–407.
  37. Narang, Sandeep K. & Paul, Stephan R. (2017). Expert witness participation in civil and criminal proceedings.
  38. Pediatrics, 139(3), 1–13.
  39. Oppenheimer, Daniel M. (2006). Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: problems with using long words needlessly. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(2), 139–156. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1178.
  40. Picornell, Isabel (2025). Ethics and Professional Conduct Oversight in Forensic Linguistic Expert Evidence. In Nick & Blewitt (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Ethics in Forensic Linguistics (pp. 27–42). London: Routledge.
  41. Pope, Kenneth S., Butcher, James N. & Seelen, Joyce (2006). The MMPI, MMPI-2, & MMPI-A in Court: A Practical Guide for Expert Witnesses and Attorneys. 3rd Edition. American Psychological Association. DOI: 10.1037/11437-002.
  42. Rañosa-Madrunio, Marilu & Martin, Isabel (2023). Forensic Linguistics in the Philippines: Origins, Developments, and Directions. Cambridge: University Press.
  43. Repke, Alexandra (2021). The Power of presentation: How attire, cosmetics, and posture impact the source credibility of the female expert witness [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi]. The Aquila Digital Community. Available at aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2925&context=dissertations (accessed 5 March 2026).
  44. Roberts, Paul & Stockdale, Michael (2018). Introduction: Forensic science, evidential reliability and institutional reform. In Roberts & Stockdale (Eds.), Forensic Science Evidence and Expert Witness Testimony: Reliability Through Reform (pp. 1–26). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  45. Rule 128, Section 3, Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines. Supreme Court of the Philippines. (1964, as amended 2019). Available at elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/373 (accessed 5 March 2026).
  46. Rule 128, Section 4, Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines. Supreme Court of the Philippines. (1964, as amended 2019). Available at elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/373 (accessed 5 March 2026).
  47. Rule 130, Section 36, Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines. Supreme Court of the Philippines. (1964, as amended 2019). Available at elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/373 (accessed 5 March 2026).
  48. Rule 130, Section 48, Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines. Supreme Court of the Philippines. (1964, as amended 2019). Available at elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/373 (accessed 5 March 2026).
  49. Rule 130, Section 49, Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines. Supreme Court of the Philippines. (1964, as amended 2019). Available at elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/373 (accessed 5 March 2026).
  50. Ryan, Gery & Bernard, H. Russel (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109. DOI: 10.1177/1525822X02239569.
  51. Solan, Lawrence (2010). The expert linguist meets the adversarial system. In Coulthard & Johnson (Eds.), An Introduction to Forensic Linguistic: Language in Evidence (pp. 95–407). London: Taylor and Francis.
  52. Thomas, Angela E. (2015). The bruised child; making your evidence stand up in court. Pediatrics and Child Health, 25(8), 387–391. DOI: 10.1016/j.paed.2015.03.002.
  53. Tufford, Lea & Newman, Peter A. (2010). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 11(1), 80–96. DOI: 10.1177/1473325010368316.
  54. UST Academia (2025). UST English Department, PIFSA Conduct Training on Ethical Investigative Interviewing.
  55. Available at ust.edu.ph/ust-english-department-pifsa-conduct-training-on-ethical-investigative-interviewing/ (accessed 5 March 2026).
  56. van der Vegt, Isabelle (2021). Linguistic threat assessment: Understanding targeted violence through computational linguistics [Doctoral thesis, University College London]. UCL Discovery.
  57. Available at discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10124525/ (accessed 5 March 2026).
  58. Wechsler, Hayley J., Kehn, Andre, Wise, Richard A. & Cramer, Robert J. (2015). Attorney beliefs concerning
  59. scientific evidence and expert witness credibility. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 41, 58–66. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.03.008.
  60. Yu, Erlinda B. (2013). Rules and Principles of Evidence. Quezon City: Central Book Supply.
  61. Ziemke, Mitchell H. & Brodsky, Stanley L. (2015). Unloading the hired gun: Inoculation effects in expert witness testimony. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 42–43, 91–97.
  62. Zipse, Donald W. & Mohla, Daleep C. (2014). Expert witnesses: The basics. Record of Conference Papers – Annual Petroleum and Chemical Industry Conference, 9–18.