The prosecution relies heavily on communication between Riff and others to establish motive. Marquette claims that Riff threatened to get even with him and put his store out of business after he was fired for being late. Motive is further established by Riff’s mentioning to Fender that he needed a lot more money than what he had won at poker that night. Verbal communication is further used to define the explanation of Riff about his winnings to those who asked, and doubt is cast upon his story by Martini, who claimed that he saw Riff cash in less money than he claimed to have and to have heard Riff complaining about being unable to win. This creates both a motive for Riff to rob, and casts doubts on the story that Riff gave to people who inquired about his money.

The defense case study relies on verbal communication to establish reasonable doubt first by establishing an explanation for the presence of Canadian money on Johnny. Matilda Slick claims to have overheard the argument about Canadian money being passed on at the card game, which was mentioned by Ace Harte and Jacques Orbetter previously. This small communication is reasonable doubt as to why Riff would have another Canadian bill. Further, Riff communicates his winnings to Gigi Gi, Sally Slick, and Matilda Slick.

Verbal communication plays a huge role in this case on both sides. For the prosecution, it is used to cast doubt on the defendant’s story. For the defense, it is used to create reasonable doubt as it pertains to a strong piece of prosecution evidence: the Canadian five dollar bill. There is little written communication that plays a role in this case, and it is unlikely that any records have been kept to exonerate Riff. However, it seems that the verbal communication alone may be enough to create reasonable doubt by explaining the presence of the Canadian note, and discrediting one of the prosecution’s key pieces of physical evidence.