The significance of events that do not fit legal categories is rejected, even as these events may remain relevant to the parties involved in the legal action. In her interviews with all participants she first asked them to provide 'free narratives' about the trial. She also asked the attorneys to identify portions of the trial transcripts that represent discourse reflecting specifically legal events and legal categories. In interviews with jurors, she asked them to report on their reactions to, and interpretations of, those portions of the trial identified by the attorneys as ones having legal significance. In chapter two, analysis of the voir dire, Stygall suggests that legal professionals and lay jurors employ different frames and keys for interpreting relevant events.
Lawyers understand that preliminary questions of potential jurors have legal consequences.
Jurors, however, understand the event as a ritual, thus fail to recognize legal implications of such questions. She also argues that in the voir dire process, jurors first begin to be exposed to the rules of discursive formation in the courtroom. For example, the law rejects certain otherwise plausible excuses for being excused from jury duty. Financial hardship is not legally acceptable. But having the same vocation as a defendant might be acceptable.