From this story about prosecutors that want their opponent instructed not to cry while fighting for his client’s life during a death penalty case.
Sorry. I agree that the death penalty is constitutional, but it ought to make someone cry at the thought of it. It’s taking a person’s life. I don’t think it’s justified in today’s world of secure prisons, but I recognize others may disagree. But fuck it all, surely the prospect ought to bring a tear or two to the eyes of anyone involved in the decision. And if it means that seeing someone cry at the though is enough to push you into voring ‘no’ for death… then maybe death wasn’t as compelling a result as you thought.
That’s…weird. How much, Bricker, would you say that law is showmanship? I can’t say that I really care for manipulative crap like crying on cue, but I imagine it’s part of the game…
If a prosecutor or defense lawyer tried that I would start laughing at the theatrics of it. Wonder if that would be allowed as a jurist. This is not a comment on the death penalty but of attempts to manipulate me.
If I understand the process correctly, at this point in the trial the defendent has already been found guilty of murder, right? So will the families of the victims have equal opportunity to shed tears in front of the jury, showing how much this convicted murderer has taken from their lives?
The argument could then be made that murder is so horrific that people should cry at the thought of it, including the prosecutors and cops.
It’s hard to conceive of banning all displays of emotion in situations like these, but if lawyers are putting on a show of tears “on cue” as a manipulative device, it’s reasonable to ask that they put a sock in it.
This bit I completely agree with. I think it’s ridiculous that people let emotion sway them while they are serving as jurors. That philosophy is probably what got me removed from a medical malpractice case involving a girl of about 8. It’s about facts, not about whether someone is sad.
Who’s going to decide whether it’s genuine or not? This “crying on cue” characterization is coming from the prosecuters. There hasn’t been any proof that the defense attorneys are acting.
It’s also not reasonable at all to say that lawyers can’t attempt to use emotion or be manipulative. Prosecuters do it all the time. Wringing as much mawkish sympathy for alleged victims is SOP. There’s nothing wrong with that. If they didn’t try to generate sympathy for the victims, they wouldn’t be doing their job, but it’s also true that some days they’re going to be walking through it.
The prosecuters in this case aren’t going to get anywhere. They just sound like sore losers to me. If the defense attorney’s tears are that transparently artificial, then they don’t have anything to worry about, do they? They need to worry about making their own cases, not trying to control the defendants’ appeals to emotion, and it’s ALL appeals to emotion during the sentencing phase of a death penalty case – ESPECIALLY when the families are testifying. Having the families testify serves no purpose OTHER than emotional manipulation. It’s ridiculous to say that one side is allowed to bawl in front of the jury but not the other side.
A defense attorney is obligated to use any legal means to defend his client. The prosecutor will never succeed with his motion. He ought to spend his time preparing a better case instead.
Since we trust the juries to decide if a witness (and their testimony), or any other evidence presented in trial, was credible (or of sufficient weight to matter), why not let them decide if the defendant’s lawyer’s tears are real or not?
Well, the rememdy here is obvious. Give the prosecutor a basketball and let him bounce it off the defense attorney’s head, Great Santini style. “Oh, you gonna cry? You gonna cry now? Huh?”
I guarantee that if my favorite (former) client loses at trial, it will be VERY tough for me to make it through without crying. This is why I do juvenile work and not adult work.
This is why I could never be a judge (aside from the fact that I never attended law school). I’d hand down the sentence as, “I’ll give ya something to cry about!”.
Crying shows an emotion, and lawyers show emotions, like anger by yelling. So why not? As stated, it could backfire if the jury feels like they’re being manipulated. Next question: if found guilty, would the convicted be able to claim he had incompetent counsel, demand another trial etc.?
[League of Their Own hijack]
Tom Hanks reacts to the fact that Evelyn has missed the cutoff man, AGAIN, during the critical game. When his hands are moving all across his face and chest, and he’s trying not to strangle her and all the emotions are running across his face…that’s some damn fine acting.
Tidbit: David Lander played the announcer. He knew he had MS but made the film anyway.
Officially diagnosed on 15 May 1984 at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, he went public in 1999 and regularly speaks at related conventions. In 2002, his autobiography was published, Fall Down Laughing: How Squiggy Caught Multiple Sclerosis and Didn’t Tell Nobody (ISBN 1-58542-052-2), written with Lee Montgomery.
As I understand it, the entire point of representation is to manipulate the jury. You’re TRYING to get them to do something particular: you’re TRYING to manipulate them into handing down a “not guilty” verdict
That’s a little disingenuous, perhaps: what folks are objecting to is emotional manipulation, I suppose. However, if all those courtroom drama shows are right (and they’re on TV, so they must be), emotional manipulation is a major part of a capital case’s sentencing phase. Are the prosecutors wanting to eliminate all forms of emotional manipulation?
I think Bricker’s hit on something important by talking about the unique weight of a capital case decision. Imagine a defense attorney who started crying during the closing statement of, say, a robbery case. There’s no way that’d fly: the jury would be disgusted at the sham theatrics, and it’d backfire bigtime. The reason it doesn’t backfire in capital cases is because weeping is an understandable response to the enormity of the decision to be made.
Actually, I do–much more so than the adults–but mostly the stakes are lower in juvenile court. My favorite client was accused of murder and was eventually bound over to adult court (pretty much a given in those cases). His case is pending trial right now, and all I can think is that I’m glad I don’t have to do it, because I couldn’t deal with potentially losing and watching him spend the rest of his life in prison.
