Heinrich von Kleist – Der zerbrochne Krug (The Broken Jug, 1808). This classic play centers on a village court case in which a judge must determine who broke a jug belonging to a local woman. The entire plot revolves around the careful reconstruction of events, examination of evidence, and the search for truth through witness testimony and logical deduction. The play is a brilliant satire of the judicial process, but at its core, it exemplifies the German logic of conflict resolution: reconstructing causes, scrutinizing evidence, and striving for objective truth, even as human flaws complicate the process.
evidence
Inspector Bärlach
Friedrich Dürrenmatt – Der Richter und sein Henker (The Judge and His Hangman, 1950). This crime novel follows Inspector Bärlach as he investigates the murder of a police officer. The story is a masterclass in methodical investigation, weighing of evidence, and unraveling of motives and circumstances. Dürrenmatt’s work reflects the German tradition of meticulously reconstructing events and motives to reach a just resolution.
Katharina Blum
Heinrich Böll – Die verlorene Ehre der Katharina Blum (The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum, 1974). This novel tells the story of a woman’s life being destroyed by tabloid journalism and public suspicion. The narrative is structured as a quasi-investigative report, presenting evidence, testimonies, and different perspectives to reconstruct the truth behind the scandal. Böll’s novel is a critique of media sensationalism but also a literary experiment in objective reporting and evidence-based narrative, mirroring the German mediator’s analytical approach.
obsession with causality
Franz Kafka – Der Prozess (The Trial, 1925). Kafka’s protagonist, Josef K., is arrested and prosecuted by a mysterious authority without ever being told his crime. The novel is a nightmarish exploration of bureaucracy, guilt, and the desperate search for evidence and explanation. While Kafka’s novel ultimately highlights the frustration and impossibility of finding objective evidence in a totalitarian system, it powerfully dramatizes the German obsession with causality, procedure, and the need for rational explanation.
Maria Stuart
Friedrich Schiller – Maria Stuart (Mary Stuart, 1800). This historical drama reconstructs the final days of Mary, Queen of Scots, focusing on the legal and moral evidence that leads to her execution. Schiller’s play is a profound meditation on justice, evidence, and the interplay of personal motives and political necessity—central concerns in German approaches to conflict and resolution.
Coffee Burns
In 1992, 79 year old Stella Liebeck bought a cup of coffee from a McDonald’s in New Mexico, spilled it on her lap, suffered multiple third-degree burns, and required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere. She subsequently sued McDonald’s.
Although the jury found Liebeck to be partly responsible for her injuries, based on evidence that McDonald’s coffee was unreasonably hot and had caused other injuries in the past, the jury decided to award Stella the equivalent of two days’ worth of coffee sales revenue for the entire restaurant chain. Some of the evidence presented at the trial includes:
1) An engineer from the University of Texas and the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation both testified that the risk of harm from the coffee was unacceptable.
2) An expert witness testified that the number of burns the coffee caused was insignificant compared to the number of cups of coffee sold every year.
3) A McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that the coffee at the serving temperature was not fit for consumption because it would burn the throat.
4) After several other similar lawsuits, McDonald’s knew about the risk of serious burns from its coffee, but did not warn customers of the risk.
Fruit or Vegetable?
In 1893, the case Nix v.s. Hedden found its way to the American Supreme Court. In this case, John Nix, John W. Nix, and Frank W. Nix filed a suit against Edward Hedden, a collector at the Port of New York, who had charged them a vegetable tax on their imported tomatoes.
The Nixes argued that, because a tomato is, botanically speaking, a fruit, the vegetable tax shouldn’t have applied.
At the trial, dictionary definitions were ignored, because, according to the Court, “dictionaries are admitted, not as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court.”
Instead, the Court looked at such things as the “ordinary meaning” of the words “fruit” and “vegetable” and precedent. In 1889, the case Robertson v. Salomon had established that, although technically white beans were seeds, they were eaten like vegetables instead of planted, so they should be taxed as a vegetable.
Ultimately, the court decided that a tomato should be taxed as a vegetable. The opinion of the court read: “Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans, and peas.
But in the common language of the people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, all these are vegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens, and which, whether eaten cooked or raw, are, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery, and lettuce, usually served at dinner in, with, or after the soup, fish, or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert.”
Evidence
MerriamWebster tells us that evidence means: something that furnishes proof; something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter; one who bears witness. First known use 14th century.
Synonyms: attestation, confirmation, corroboration, documentation, proof, substantiation, testament, testimonial, testimony, validation, voucher, witness.
Antonyms: disproof.
Reconstructing Memories
“The uncritical acceptance of eyewitness accounts may stem from a popular misconception of how memory works. Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them.
On the contrary, psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them. The act of remembering, says eminent memory researcher and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine, is “more akin to putting puzzle pieces together than retrieving a video recording.”
Even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witness’s testimony because fragments of the memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the questioner, leading to inaccurate recall.”
From: “Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts”, Hal Arkowitz and Scott Lilienfeld. Scientific American magazine, January 8, 2009.
Eyewitness testimony
Eyewitness testimony is the account a bystander gives in the courtroom, describing what that person observed that occurred during the specific incident under investigation. This recollection is used as evidence to show what happened from a witness’ point of view.
Memory recall has been considered a credible source in the past, but has recently come under attack as forensics can now support psychologists in their claim that memories and individual perceptions are unreliable; being easily manipulated, altered, and biased.
Many U.S. states are now attempting to make changes in how eyewitness testimony is presented in court. Eyewitness testimony is a specialized focus within cognitive psychology.