Tagging the truth: misogynoir and the discursive construction of ‘reality’ in Florida v. George Zimmerman

This paper critically analyzes the discursive strategies employed by a defense attorney in the high-profile, racially charged case: State of Florida v. George Zimmerman, known as the ‘Trayvon Martin’ trial. I argue that the success of the attorney’s strategies – that is, obtaining a ‘not guilty’ verdict for Zimmerman – is intrinsically linked to gendered and anti-Black ideologies, which intersect in the discourse to perpetuate misogynoir, a unique form of gendered anti-Black racism [Bailey, M., & Trudy (2018). On misogynoir: Citation, erasure, and plagiarism. Feminist Media Studies, 18(4), 762–768]. Specifically, I demonstrate how the defense attorney’s use of tagged declaratives during his cross-examination of Trayvon Martin’s mother – a Black American woman – not only constructs a hypothetical ‘reality’ in which Zimmerman is portrayed as not guilty but also leverages gendered and racialized ideologies that converge in the discourse to reinforce the plausibility of this ‘reality’. This paper contributes to critical discourse analysts’ integration of intersectionality theory to the discipline by illuminating how converging ideologies of singular identities in discourse can entrench dominance at the intersection of these identities. By exploring the reproduction of misogynoir in courtroom discourse, this study underscores the importance of centering Black women in intersectional theorizing within critical discourse studies.