When to use humor in the courtroom

Originally published by Douglas Keene.

A few weeks ago, headlines proclaimed that Justin Bieber was going to be the target of a comedy roast. Then, after the roast, all anyone could talk about was Martha Stewart and her bawdy contribution. Some people enjoy comedy roasts. Shortly after the Bieber roast, Max Ufberg at Pacific Standard wrote about both the danger and the allure of comedy roasts.

Ufberg says “deprecating humor is satisfying because it helps people feel superior”. In other words, when you put someone down with a demeaning comment or a joke at their expense, you feel better by comparison. Ufberg goes on to describe how comedy roasts began and then quotes experts who say the emotional tone of a comedy roast and “create a social environment more accepting of prejudiced forms of expression”.

So, if Mr. Ufberg is correct, humor that marginalizes its target or otherwise makes fun of or demeans the target is potentially making some of us more accepting of prejudice. And we all know there is a time and a place for everything—humor included. So when does it make sense to use humor in the courtroom? One would think it might help build rapport with jurors.

Or perhaps not. The Supreme Court’s guidebook for attorneys recommends they not use humor as “attempts at humor usually fall flat”. Thanks to often-present cameras in the courtroom, many of us have seen a joke proffered by the attorney attempting to win over a jury, fall flat. You may recall the Zimmerman defense attorney offering a knock-knock joke in his opening statement.

Our own advice to the attorney who desperately wants to crack a joke is “don’t. But if you must, only use self-deprecating humor”. For example, you might say to the expert witness, “you know, I was never good with statistics, but this just makes no sense to me…can you help me understand?”. The problem with self-deprecation by attorneys about technical matters is that jurors don’t usually believe it. They are sure that by the time you get to trial you know what you are speaking about, and they are skeptical of what you say if you claim otherwise. Especially when you demonstrate a significant depth of knowledge when you cross-examine the opposing expert witness.

Gentle, infrequent humor at your own expense that furthers your connection to the jurors and helps them to understand your case (through the expert testimony) is better than humor that someone may see as marginalizing their own deeply held beliefs.

Image

Related posts:

1. Does Hamlet (or rather Polonius) make sense in the courtroom?
2. ‘Lawyerese’ may work well in journals but not in the courtroom!
3.  Psychopaths cannot understand punishment—what does that mean for the courtroom?

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/1zMhPbh
via Abogado Aly Website