Law Schooled: What Are Lawyer Jokes Good For?
Throughout the murder trial of former Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez, Boston.com will offer insight into the proceedings from local legal experts in a series called “Law Schooled.’’
The last time the jury gathered in the courtroom for testimony in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial, defense attorney James Sultan made a joke. After cross-examining state trooper Timothy Dowd about the alleged crime scene and Dowd’s training with tire inflation devices, Sultan had one last question:
“Have you ever received training in football deflation devices?’’
“No,’’ responded Dowd, deadpan.
Sultan had no further questions and sat down, leaving reporters and spectators mostly confused, rather than amused, asking themselves “Did he just make a Deflategate joke?’’
The next morning Judge E. Susan Garsh told Sultan they were conducting “very serious business’’ and that she expected no further jokes.
“I apologize to the court. In hindsight, that was a mistake,’’ said Sultan.
His attempt at humor produced more media fodder (this piece no exception), than it did laughs. So why bother in the first place? What, if any, does a joke during a murder trial serve? And why did Sultan have to apologize for it?
According to Boston trial attorney Peter Bellotti, most lawyers that have been around the system for awhile are alright with humor in the courtroom, though younger lawyers new to the environment may be hesitant to try jokes. However, for some people it’s part of their personality, and jokes can be useful for the sake of comfortability and communicating with others in an otherwise tense situation, said Bellotti.
Humor can also impact the power dynamics and social barriers that affect communication, according to a Communication Law Review study of the Supreme Court by Ryan Malphurs. Malphurs holds a doctorate in communication from Texas A&M University, and is the author of “Rhetoric and Discourse in Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Sensemaking in Judicial Decisions.’’
“Laughter’s ability to equalize members of differing hierarchical positions is testament to its power,’’ Malphurs wrote in his study. “While laughter will not serve as a panacea for Justice Scalia’s grouchiness or spur Justice Thomas into loquaciousness, it exerts a powerful moment of temporary unity.
“During that moment of laughter, every human shares the same insight, engages in the same action, and everyone in the courtroom seems nearly equal,’’ he concluded.
“It’s when it’s slightly out of context and posed by someone who typically doesn’t try to be funny,’’ said Bellotti, that the lack of expectations from the jury can cause a joke to fall flat.
“There’s a lot more apologizing in the courtroom than is otherwise necessary,’’ said Bellotti. “He aired on the side of caution.’’
According to Bellotti, because of the dynamics of the courtroom, where judicial impartiality is a must, “the judge will never speak favorably about an attorney making a joke.’’
Other than that, Bellotti said he thought Sultan’s Deflategate joke was “pretty benign.’’
Ultimately, the joke probably had more impact on Twitter than it did in the courtroom. When compared to other courtroom jokes, Sultan’s quip was “pretty benign,’’ indeed.
In 2013, during the murder trial of George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman’s defense attorney Don West kicked off his opening statements with a knock-knock joke.
“Knock, knock.’’
“Who’s there?’’
“George Zimmerman.’’
“George Zimmerman, who?’’
“Alright good. You’re on the jury.’’
Like Sultan’s joke, West elicited few laughs, following up by asking the jury “Nothing?’’ Worse, West essentially insulted the jurors, by implying they were uninformed and that was the reason they were on the jury. The insulting nature of a joke could far outweigh whatever humanizing effect it is supposed to have for the lawyer, maybe even making the jury less sympathetic to his case.
“Lawyers consider it a little bit risky,’’ said Bellotti, noting that it might be different in sessions where the jury is not present.
More importantly, according to Bellotti, is that lawyers do not use illogical or fallacious arguments that could damage their reputation, which Sultan avoided.
“He is very credible and the most important thing for a lawyer in front of a jury is to be credible,’’ said Bellotti. “You don’t lose credibility doing what Jamie did.’’
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com