How does one point out quotation marks when speaking . . . perhaps on the witness stand for the court reporter (stenotypist)? For example, how does one say the following statement?

I saw "him."

1) I saw quote him quote.
2) I saw quote him unquote.
3) I saw quote unquote him.
4) ?

I'd say 2 or 3; but my bet would be on 2.

Number two. 'Quote' indicates that what follows is what was said and 'unquote' tells the listener that the direct speech ends with the last word before 'unquote'. Otherwise there's no way of knowing at what exact word the quotation ends.

In a court room people rarely say the word quote. People generally use the terms he said or she said. Most people I know take their index and middle finger and hold them together in front of them. They bend those two fingers down as they say the word quote. It is usually just a word or two they are quoting.

Actually, none of the above...
When you say "I saw him", you are stated a fact as to what YOU saw...
The only time you would possible use quotes, is when you are repeating what someone ELSE said...

Fritzzs , the example given makes sense if we understand that "him" is how an individual has been referred to by some third party. So this third person has said something previously such as " That's him; he's the one who ran away". The witness has heard this and looked to see the man indicated. The witness recounts this by saying 'I saw "him" ' In so doing the witness is using the word of the third person, quoting that person's speech.The third person has said " that's him". It would be no different if the suspect 1) had been given a name, Jack, by the third person. The witness would quote: 'I saw "Jack"' or 2) had been described by the third person e.g. 'that's the man with the bruised knuckles' the witness would report 'I saw " the man with the bruised knuckles"'.

Policemen are trained to be pedantic about hearsay. So they would say '[The third person] indicated to me/ described to me/ named to me/ a man' Only if invited would they quote the person, even as to 'That's him' But then policemen are not normal.

[This would be hearsay from the witness if it were put in to prove the man was 'him', the same man as seen by the third person earlier, or did have bruised knuckles but it is admissible to prove the speech , to explain what happened and why.As to the name, the evidence is admissible to prove only that is what the third person said was the man's name.(It could be admissible to prove it was his name,how he was known by his acquaintances or by the world at large, in certain cases... but that's more than enough ! )]

Well, the orginal question as stated (asked) did not refer that another person had said "I saw him".... It was asked as a first person statement... So that was the only way to answer....

clarebear: In a courtroom the court reporter is not a playwright and so takes down only what is said, not what is gestured, I think. Gestures, unless specifically requested, may be forbidden, too, I think. I do not know whether gestures are allowed on something televised, but my guess is no: not only can the court reporter not enter them into the record, but also they tend to prejudice jurors in many instances.

Fritzzs & FredPuli: It was probably after I went to sleep that I thought that the example is a bad one and that, if anything, one would use "I saw him" and so say, "I saw underline him end underline," I think.

Ah, there are quite a few exceptions as to which hearsay is acceptable, and those which come to my mind are excited utterances and present sense impressions. I love it when others point out that something other than the issue at hand is an issue which also needs clarification lest someone be mislead by another component in a thread.

All: I go with #2. I think that one can also say "I saw quote him end quote" in addition to "I saw quote him unquote." Does this sound correct?

I'm with Clarebear. People don't use quotation marks, or say 'quote' when speaking. They use body language; they change their tone of voice or leave a pause. It's done non-verbally.

Suppose there is a trial of someone famous as 'John Smith'. In the trial, it turns out that it's not his real name. A witness talking about him might say, "I saw... John Smith."

I can't write down the non-verbal signals; the pause, the tiny shrug, the unusual intonation. That's the point, though - that's why we use quotation marks. The witness says, "I saw [pause, embarrassed smirk, sarcastic emphasis...] John Smith."

The stenographer writes, "I saw 'John Smith'."

Easy, eh?

If a witness talks about what someone else said, he or she naturally uses 'reported speech', with changes in tenses, pronouns and so on to make things clear.

(Criminal: "I like it here today.")

Witness: 'He said he liked it there that day.'

In a legal transcript I have seen the quotation marks missing and the words "quote" and "unquote" instead of the marks. The latter practice may be correct. Anyway, I also remember answering who said what with a minor's name which begins with the letter "I." The stenotypist, to protect the minor, typed "I," and I had to go through a little mess to get others to understand that I did not incriminate myself.